Avengers 4: Endgame trailer

[Darth Credence]

https://youtu.be/hA6hldpSTF8

The trailer and the supposedly spoilerific title of "Endgame" dropped this morning. I have no idea why they thought "Endgame" was a spoiler for the general populace, and frankly I am underwhelmed by the trailer. I am also surprised by how lively Tony Stark is after four days without water.

ETA - hmm. Not sure why the trailer didn't show up. Hope it works this way.

[Eldan]

Ugh. I was so happy Ant-Man wasn't in the last one. Can't stand the guy.

[lord_khaine]

The trailer and the supposedly spoilerific title of "Endgame" dropped this morning. I have no idea why they thought "Endgame" was a spoiler for the general populace, and frankly I am underwhelmed by the trailer. I am also surprised by how lively Tony Stark is after four days without water.

He is clearly recycling the little he has left.

[DigoDragon]

Trailer is a little underwhelming, but they probably want to keep spoilers as few as possible. Still, makes a nice reminder that 2019 is gonna be good.



I am also surprised by how lively Tony Stark is after four days without water.

The average human can go about 3 days without water before expiring, so I could see Lord_khaine's theory being good enough to explain it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

He is clearly recycling the little he has left.

I haven't watched the trailer (nor will I; I already know I'm going to watch the film, so I don't need to be convinced further at the cost of spoilers), so I might be missing some important context but: the Iron Man suit can deal with pee (as seen in, IIRC, Iron Man 2). Tony keeps improving and changing the suit, but I doubt he ever takes features out. So the suit, even in a diminished state, can at the very least collect, and likely purify, any liquids exuded by Tony.

(Disregard this if, say, the trailer explicitly shows Tony out of magical nanomachine particles or whatever... just don't tell me about it. Or do, I'm unlikely to come back to the thread, since as posts increase, the chance of accidental spoilering tends to 1).

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

What I find weird is: why is he alone? Wasn't he left with Nebula at the end of the last one?

[Psyren]

Looks like Ant-Man managed to get himself out of the Quantum Realm. Or maybe Cassie did it? I'm seeing rumors that there may be a decently sizeable timeskip between IW and EG.

My biggest hope though is that Vision won't be completely sidelined. I'd hate to think that everything Shuri and SW did was completely for nothing. Even Thor's actions, though they failed, taught us a bit about the gauntlet, and Rocket should still have a bunch of that info.

No sign of Carol yet, so guess we'll have to wait and see on that front.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Very limited information giveaway, but as someone else pointed out--we're seeing the film, they don't actually need to hype us up for it. So we're getting a big teaser for now.

And with the nod to Ronin, looks like the Russos have found a direction for Hawkeye that they really like. It's not a surprising pick, and I'll be glad to see them flex their stuff on the most underdeveloped Avenger. And, dare I hope this might mean Kate in the future? The comics Kate took over the Hawkeye identity when Clint was Ronin, so...it's a slim hope, but it's something.

[JadedDM]

What I find weird is: why is he alone? Wasn't he left with Nebula at the end of the last one?

It's likely she just wasn't in the same room at the time. He was recording a private message for Pepper, after all.

[DigoDragon]

What I find weird is: why is he alone? Wasn't he left with Nebula at the end of the last one?

Maybe Nebula took Starlord's ship and Tony was left with Nebula's ship. The scene of the ship adrift doesn't look like Starlord's.

[Magic_Hat]

Ugh. I was so happy Ant-Man wasn't in the last one. Can't stand the guy.

So you opinion on the man is small?:smallwink:

Lame jokes aside I can't wait to see how this retcon the last movie as well as retcons the fact that apparently Captain Marvel has been around since the 90s but didn't appeared in any film (including Avengers I, II, and III) before.

[Ranxerox]

Very limited information giveaway, but as someone else pointed out--we're seeing the film, they don't actually need to hype us up for it. So we're getting a big teaser for now.

And with the nod to Ronin, looks like the Russos have found a direction for Hawkeye that they really like. It's not a surprising pick, and I'll be glad to see them flex their stuff on the most underdeveloped Avenger. And, dare I hope this might mean Kate in the future? The comics Kate took over the Hawkeye identity when Clint was Ronin, so...it's a slim hope, but it's something.

The rumor is that Katherine Langford, who is know to have a role in Avenger 4 will be playing Kate Bishop.
It is just a rumor, but she certainly looks the part.

[Clertar]

It's likely she just wasn't in the same room at the time. He was recording a private message for Pepper, after all.

When we do see Nebula it looks like she's also in the spaceship.

[Androgeus]

well as retcons the fact that apparently Captain Marvel has been around since the 90s but didn't appeared in any film (including Avengers I, II, and III) before.

Retcon does not mean the same thing as explains.

[Legato Endless]

Retcon does not mean the same thing as explains.

Marvel really can't please everyone. Some fans don't like how Earth-centric the MCU is with the number of Infinity Stones squirreled away, whereas others demand why everything isn't happening on Earth. How could someone be elsewhere in the galaxy when Plot was going on in New York? Why doesn't Fury summon every asset he has everytime there's an emergency?

(Even though that's not how agencies work in real life, let alone fictional institutions headed by guy's whose 'secrets have secrets')

[The Glyphstone]

For that matter, we might not even be able to call the resolution of the Snap a 'retcon', because it definitely happened. Unless the Un-Snap is so comprehensive that it removes even the memories of the survivors (possible, but i feel its unlikely), there will be plenty of people who knew it happened and probably plenty of physical evidence it happened even after everyone is returned to life.

[Kato]

I thought the trailer was kind of underwhelming.. I'm happy Clint is back but that's about it. I mean, we're likely going to get like ten more before the movie and those will probably show more but until then.. We got Tony being mopey, which is totally what I want from my marvel movies.

[Aotrs Commander]

I thought the trailer was kind of underwhelming.. I'm happy Clint is back but that's about it. I mean, we're likely going to get like ten more before the movie and those will probably show more but until then.. We got Tony being mopey, which is totally what I want from my marvel movies.

I am increasingly convinced that initial/teaser trailers are barely worth watching, as they always seem to be unhelpful at best and make the movie look worse than it is. At the very least, I am starting to treat them as nothing to get excited about, except to be aware they are around so I can wait for the later, better trailers.



(Deadpool, as usual, did not cleave to this trope.)

[Rex500]

Endgame is a somewhat dull title. Trailer wasn't that bad though.

[Devonix]

Well they have farmer Thanos in the story though it's interesting having it seeming like it will be in the beginning of the story rather than the end.

Having Thanos after acomplishing his goal trying to retire to a quiet life and dealing with the enormity of what he's done and mourning those that have died. Rather than it being him trying to move on after his failure.

[BWR]

I can understand not wanting to show too much in a trailer at this point but this was a resounding 'meh' for me. At least until they brought in Hawkeye, at which point I went 'Oh right, he's in this franchise too isn't he? I hope he doesn't get too much screen time because that would be seriously boring'.
Then they showed us Ant-Man. I was just getting happy over not having to sit through Starlord, and they give us Scott.
Bleh.

At least I probably won't have to sit through both of them at the same time.

[Magic_Hat]

Retcon does not mean the same thing as explains.

Because I'm sure their explanation is going to make complete sense and not have any cracks or plot holes.

[The Glyphstone]

Because I'm sure their explanation is going to make complete sense and not have any cracks or plot holes.

A bad explanation is still an explanation, or at least an attempt at one. Neither of them are a retcon.

Or to quote an extreme obscure movie no one here has ever heard of, "That word - I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Clertar]

I am increasingly convinced that initial/teaser trailers are barely worth watching, as they always seem to be unhelpful at best and make the movie look worse than it is. At the very least, I am starting to treat them as nothing to get excited about, except to be aware they are around so I can wait for the later, better trailers.


I feel the opposite way. This trailer already has shown us too much for my liking.

[Devonix]

A bad explanation is still an explanation, or at least an attempt at one. Neither of them are a retcon.

Or to quote an extreme obscure movie no one here has ever heard of, "That word - I do not think it means what you think it means."

All Retcons are explanations but not all explanations are retcons.

[The Glyphstone]

All Retcons are explanations but not all explanations are retcons.

True. I suppose it would be more accurate to say 'Neither of them are necessarily a retcon."

[Spacewolf]

A bad explanation is still an explanation, or at least an attempt at one. Neither of them are a retcon.

Or to quote an extreme obscure movie no one here has ever heard of, "That word - I do not think it means what you think it means."

No retcon fits the situation with Captain Marvel, as the film will almost certainly revise previous information in a way that wasn't originally intended or attach new significance to them as Captain Marvel wasn't planned at the time of the start of the marvel universe. The issue is you are treating the word Retcon as negative when it's not.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It'll probably be a mix of filling in holes that were never talked about in prior movies (because the info out there will never be comprehensive as shown in the film, especially where SHIELD and its secrets are concerned) and massaging facts to fit that. The fact-massaging is retcon, the filling-in of details is not. (Similar to how Agent Carter closed some continuity gaps by filling in details where nothing had explicitly been stated.)

[Devonix]

The things that they are doing with Captain Marvel are retcons though. They have to be. Because she is a character being placed into areas that she didn't originally belong in.

[Clertar]

The things that they are doing with Captain Marvel are retcons though. They have to be. Because she is a character being placed into areas that she didn't originally belong in.

Isn't that too broad a definition? It means that anything novel in a prequel is a retcon.

I think the way having a concept such as retcon makes sense is for it to be about the viewer, not about the content or the fictional world in the medium. The fact that Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker is not a retcon---we never saw otherwise. The retcon is merely about Kenobi's one sentence to Luke, it went from being true to being a veiled lie.

[Devonix]

Anything in a prequel that was not originally planned IS a retcon. Retcon is not a naughty word. It is simply describing a writer sliding a new piece of info into a place.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not sure why the focus on whether there is retconning going on or not. Seems like a pointless conversation.

Trailer was meh. Don't much care for Hawkeye when the stakes are so high, so I hope he's not integral to the plot or takes up a lot of screen time.

I'm not sure what the point of the trailer is either. Didn't really tell us much of anything. So Tony survived the Snap but now he's going to die from dehydration or asphyxiation? Sure, lol. Hawkeye is back? Okay, could have used you earlier lol. Do you have an anti-infinity gauntlet arrow in that quiver?

I mean... I'm definitely going to watch the movie but... what was I supposed to get out of this trailer?

[The Jack]

Calling it now:
Hawkeye kills thanos
It's a David and Goliath.
Well... Clint and Titan.
Everyone acts like it's genius.

[ben-zayb]

It's alright. It showed Shuri on the missing list and was likely dusted, which really sucks. Scott's status had a quantum explanation, so I hope Shuri also was just off the grid doing something.

Do you have an anti-infinity gauntlet arrow in that quiver?Probably not, but he has plot armory arrows. Avengers? His side won. Age of Ultron? Same. Civil War? Yup, technically, but really everybody still ended up losing.

[Devonix]

It's a teaser trailer, I didn't need it or want it to show to much. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather they kept the Ronin thing secret.

[Legato Endless]

but... what was I supposed to get out of this trailer?

Cap and Widow sitting down to tell each other and you: the preview movie? Yeah it totally happened. It's a new trend where to avoid spoilers teasers are just confirmations this is a sequel rather than telling you something new.


Isn't that too broad a definition? It means that anything novel in a prequel is a retcon.

Regardless of one's preferred definition, it's just odd this is such a sticking point in online discussions. It's not like there aren't other examples of the MCU revising the world with new history or examples where heroes aren't involved in conflicts. Thanos' glove has been revised several times with new information they didn't originally plan.

Or for a latter example, there wasn't a flood of complaints after Dr. Strange's movie about why the masters of the mystic arts failed to show up to stop the Convergence in Thor 2, even though it fits in their purview, they should probably care about reality being erased, and even if they couldn't teleport across the globe with a spell seemingly all of their high ranking members can casually cast, one of their three main bases is located in London.

Even if one is certain to dislike the currently unknown explanation, it's already happened before in the evolution of the MCU.

[Pheldagriff]

I'm really surprised about the reactions in this thread.
imho the trailer was awesome and I'm looking forward to seeing the potentially best movie of 2019

[DigoDragon]

I'm really surprised about the reactions in this thread.

I didn't realize Hawkeye and Ant Man were so unpopular. I can kinda see Hawkeye I suppose since his powers aren't impressive and he tends to be a moody type, but Ant Man? Aww, I like him, he's a pretty fun character. :3

[Devonix]

I didn't realize Hawkeye and Ant Man were so unpopular. I can kinda see Hawkeye I suppose since his powers aren't impressive and he tends to be a moody type, but Ant Man? Aww, I like him, he's a pretty fun character. :3

I find it strange too.

[GloatingSwine]

I didn't realize Hawkeye and Ant Man were so unpopular. I can kinda see Hawkeye I suppose since his powers aren't impressive and he tends to be a moody type, but Ant Man? Aww, I like him, he's a pretty fun character. :3

The problem with Hawkeye in the movies is that he doesn't really have a lot of personality.

Most of the time he's just a sort of arrow shooting robot.

(Also the most characterful Hawkeye storyline in the comics was released after the first Avengers movie. If Matt Fraction's run had been a few years earlier we might have had a better Hawkeye.)

[Devonix]

The problem with Hawkeye in the movies is that he doesn't really have a lot of personality.

Most of the time he's just a sort of arrow shooting robot.

(Also the most characterful Hawkeye storyline in the comics was released after the first Avengers movie. If Matt Fraction's run had been a few years earlier we might have had a better Hawkeye.)

Really? I'd say he had a lot of character work in Age of Ultron as well as Civil War. And by the way, how much do you think they are going to play up the whole Wracked by guilt thing for Thanos?

[Eldan]

I didn't realize Hawkeye and Ant Man were so unpopular. I can kinda see Hawkeye I suppose since his powers aren't impressive and he tends to be a moody type, but Ant Man? Aww, I like him, he's a pretty fun character. :3

As far as I'm aware, I'm the only person in the cosmos who doesn't like Ant-Man, so you're not alone. But I hate him. I can't stand his smug face. (Which is weird, because I like a lot of other smug and/or jokey characters). Him and most of his annoying supporting cast. I rate it as my top 1 worst Marvel movie.

[The Glyphstone]

As far as I'm aware, I'm the only person in the cosmos who doesn't like Ant-Man, so you're not alone. But I hate him. I can't stand his smug face. (Which is weird, because I like a lot of other smug and/or jokey characters). Him and most of his annoying supporting cast. I rate it as my top 1 worst Marvel movie.

Does that include pre-MCU works? Because Howard The Duck is technically a Marvel movie...:smalleek:

[Dr.Samurai]

Calling it now:
Hawkeye kills thanos
It's a David and Goliath.
Well... Clint and Titan.
Everyone acts like it's genius.
We can definitely count on people acting like flaws in the movie are genius :smallamused:.

Cap and Widow sitting down to tell each other and you: the preview movie? Yeah it totally happened. It's a new trend where to avoid spoilers teasers are just confirmations this is a sequel rather than telling you something new.
Ah. That's sort of strange. If they announced tomorrow that Avengers 4 was in theaters, with no fanfare, I'd go see it. So a trailer that is simply there to tell you the movie is made... ok? Also, I thought studies show that the more a trailer reveals, the better the movie does. Now, I'm no fan of spoilers in trailers, but if you're right then this seems like a trend towards pointless trailers that don't help the bottom line.

Regardless of one's preferred definition, it's just odd this is such a sticking point in online discussions.
Wholeheartedly agree.

I didn't realize Hawkeye and Ant Man were so unpopular.
Well, Hawkeye just doesn't have a lot of character in the movies. He's just... a guy. Pretty straight-laced, but that's Cap's schtick. His abilities also don't lend themselves well to putting him front and center, whereas Cap, as a guy that punches stuff and blocks things with his shield, is more in the thick of things.

They tried to do more in Age of Ultron but I don't think just showing that he has a wife and kids adds all that much personality to the character. So I hope we don't get too much of Arrow McBlandman in Avengers 4.

Antman, on the other hand, certainly has character. I like him. I will say though that his motivations had a little hiccup in Civil War. The whole point of the first movie was that he wanted to be a model citizen for the sake of his daughter. But somehow, he manages to find himself wrapped up in the events of Civil War. This is totally inconsistent with the first Antman movie and is really just sort of hand-waived away in Civil War. If he had been doing it to become a member of the Avengers, okay. But he's specifically fighting on the fugitive side, so that's not the case. Now, of course, since the Wasp has been Snapped, he has motivation to join the fray in Avengers 4, so this isn't a total issue. But Civil War certainly had me feeling like the character was not fully realized at the time.

[Spacewolf]

Personally for me Hawkeye has always been there but has never really stood out so I don't really care that he now has a sword except that he is now even more ineffective than before.

Ant-man on the other hand I just don't like, I like his movies and supporting cast ok but the character himself is just kind of annoying.

[Darth Ultron]

Or for a latter example, there wasn't a flood of complaints after Dr. Strange's movie about why the masters of the mystic arts failed to show up to stop the Convergence in Thor 2, even though it fits in their purview, they should probably care about reality being erased, and even if they couldn't teleport across the globe with a spell seemingly all of their high ranking members can casually cast, one of their three main bases is located in London.

The Marvel comics have always had this problem too. About half the time, in the past before 2000 or so, they did often bend over backwards to have a loose continuity. So half the time they really did have good reasons why X person or X group did not show up to save the world. About half the time. Of course, the other half of the time it was just a mess that made no sense. Though, after 2000...well, Marvel is a mess of just random stories and they don't care about anything about the stories.

This is a lot where the MCU is too.

[Florian]

Oh, I actually like some of the less flashy MCU characters. It´s not that I don't enjoy a visual ride with Dr. Strange or so, but characters like the Black Widow, Hawkeye, Ant Man (and Deadpool) tend to sharpen the focus on heroic effort, not just power (Which is basically why I find Vision, Black Panther and Iron Man exceedingly boring. Gods... how I hate Wakanda....).

[DigoDragon]

Well, Hawkeye just doesn't have a lot of character in the movies. He's just... a guy. Pretty straight-laced, but that's Cap's schtick. His abilities also don't lend themselves well to putting him front and center, whereas Cap, as a guy that punches stuff and blocks things with his shield, is more in the thick of things.

Right, right. Like I said, I can see why the unappeal with Hawkeye.



Antman, on the other hand, certainly has character. I like him. I will say though that his motivations had a little hiccup in Civil War. The whole point of the first movie was that he wanted to be a model citizen for the sake of his daughter. But somehow, he manages to find himself wrapped up in the events of Civil War. This is totally inconsistent with the first Antman movie and is really just sort of hand-waived away in Civil War. If he had been doing it to become a member of the Avengers, okay. But he's specifically fighting on the fugitive side, so that's not the case. Now, of course, since the Wasp has been Snapped, he has motivation to join the fray in Avengers 4, so this isn't a total issue. But Civil War certainly had me feeling like the character was not fully realized at the time.

The entirety of Civil was sat poorly with me. The villain wasn't anyone special and there weren't any real stakes. It felt like a poor excuse just to have our favorite super heroes fight each other like one of those Death Battle videos (with more budget).

[The Glyphstone]

Right, right. Like I said, I can see why the unappeal with Hawkeye.




The entirety of Civil was sat poorly with me. The villain wasn't anyone special and there weren't any real stakes. It felt like a poor excuse just to have our favorite super heroes fight each other like one of those Death Battle videos (with more budget).

I thought the villain was the only part of Civil War I enjoyed. He wasn't a megalomaniacal supervillain or alien conquerer or omnicidal maniac...just a regular ordinary dude driven to extremes by his grief. His plan only worked because everyone else involved was a moron, but that's a fault of the entire rest of the movie, not Zemo's character.

[Devonix]

Right, right. Like I said, I can see why the unappeal with Hawkeye.




The entirety of Civil was sat poorly with me. The villain wasn't anyone special and there weren't any real stakes. It felt like a poor excuse just to have our favorite super heroes fight each other like one of those Death Battle videos (with more budget).

I felt the exact opposite of Civil War. To me it was the first Marvel film with actual stakes. You know that the Avengers are going to beat Loki, You know that Ultron isn't going to wipe out all life. There are no stakes there, the heroes can't lose.

Civil War on the other hand. The heroes DID LOSE The villain won, because his plan was small enough that it was capable of actually getting acomplished.

[Clertar]

Civil War on the other hand. The heroes DID LOSE The villain won, because his plan was small enough that it was capable of actually getting acomplished.

And in Avengers 3 we could say that their loss against Thanos is a consequence of Zemo's victory. The Avengers don't exist as a group any more, they're disbanded and they end up facing Thanos separately. If they had fought Thanos's lieutenants together, or even Thanos himself, they might have defeated him. One could argue that on Titan the GoG didn't make much difference; if you take Iron Man, Strange and Spider-man plus the Avengers on Earth all against Thanos, the scales might very well have been tipped.

[Dr.Samurai]

The entirety of Civil was sat poorly with me. The villain wasn't anyone special and there weren't any real stakes. It felt like a poor excuse just to have our favorite super heroes fight each other like one of those Death Battle videos (with more budget).
When I first saw Civil War, I was pretty disappointed. Especially coming off Winter Soldier (my favorite MCU movie). I did not like Zemo. And I (generally) don't like the gimmick of making superheroes fight each other. It's pretty lame.

That said, the more times I've watched Civil War, the more it has grown on me. It's still a little clunky (mostly Zemo stuff), but I can tolerate it.

One could argue that on Titan the GoG didn't make much difference;
One could argue that. But since Mantis is the single only reason they even had a chance at defeating Thanos on Titan, it would be a hard argument to make :smallwink:.

[Olinser]

About the only thing I picked up on was how SHOCKED Widow and Cap seemed to be to see Antman. This kind of makes me think he was supposed to die in the snap but being in the Quantum Realm protected him somehow, possibly leading to some kind of actual defense against the Gauntlet.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, I think anyone that they've been unable to reach and has gone missing inexplicably is presumed Dead-By-Snap. And so since no one, presumably, could get in touch with Antman while he was in the Quantum Realm, he was presumed Snapped.

So they're surprised to see him because they thought he was dead.

[OutOfThyme]

Well, I think anyone that they've been unable to reach and has gone missing inexplicably is presumed Dead-By-Snap. And so since no one, presumably, could get in touch with Antman while he was in the Quantum Realm, he was presumed Snapped.

So they're surprised to see him because they thought he was dead.Not to mention that since his other associates were Snapped, and no one was able to get into contact with any of them until he shows up on Cap's doorstep, it's completely fair that he's assumed dead.

[Tvtyrant]

I didn't realize Hawkeye and Ant Man were so unpopular. I can kinda see Hawkeye I suppose since his powers aren't impressive and he tends to be a moody type, but Ant Man? Aww, I like him, he's a pretty fun character. :3

They are quite literally my favorite characters, so I'm pretty stoked. Lang because he's not much of a hero despite having strange and awesome suits/powers, Hawkeye because he is despite not having them.

[Psyren]

I didn't realize Hawkeye and Ant Man were so unpopular. I can kinda see Hawkeye I suppose since his powers aren't impressive and he tends to be a moody type, but Ant Man? Aww, I like him, he's a pretty fun character. :3

He's also pretty versatile character power-wise. His moveset is street-level enough to deal with petty crims, but can also let him punch up to supervillains, and the cosmic aspects of the Quantum Realm have the potential to get him into at least striking distance of Asgard/Strange/Thanos echelons.

[Florian]

The entirety of Civil was sat poorly with me. The villain wasn't anyone special and there weren't any real stakes. It felt like a poor excuse just to have our favorite super heroes fight each other like one of those Death Battle videos (with more budget).

Civil War was one of the MCU movies with perhaps the highest appeal to me. It´s one of the few instances to tackle the question of power and legitimacy pretty hard. It showcased that morality becomes rather grey and the lines between hero and villain can become quite blurred, when you begin to see power alone as a source of legitimacy for your actions.

The villain here was absolutely not important. His motivation was pretty clear, but his actions were aimed towards polarizing the heroes and drawing out the worst in them. At this, he succeeded admirably. I also like the MCU version way more than the comic version because of that.

[Aotrs Commander]

Civil War was one of the MCU movies with perhaps the highest appeal to me. It´s one of the few instances to tackle the question of power and legitimacy pretty hard. It showcased that morality becomes rather grey and the lines between hero and villain can become quite blurred, when you begin to see power alone as a source of legitimacy for your actions.

The villain here was absolutely not important. His motivation was pretty clear, but his actions were aimed towards polarizing the heroes and drawing out the worst in them. At this, he succeeded admirably. I also like the MCU version way more than the comic version because of that.

I went into Civil War with VERY low expecatations, given the source material and resigned to the fact they might well kill someone off (Rhodey).

I was never so pleased to be entirely proven wrong on both counts. (And that scene at the end? With Rhodey and Tony? THAT is why character death is a waste.)

[Tyndmyr]

Anything in a prequel that was not originally planned IS a retcon. Retcon is not a naughty word. It is simply describing a writer sliding a new piece of info into a place.

'means retroactive continuity. If you're not changing existing continuity, it ain't a retcon. Prequels exploring uncovered topics are not retcons unless they significantly alter the meaning of what has already been shown.

That said, comics are notorious for doing retcons all the time. I'm not going to be shocked and appalled if we get a bit of that, so long as it makes sense.

Not a ton of info yet, though I had the same thought. What happened to Nebula? I like both Antman and Hawkeye, so neither of those are problems for me. I'm also very okay with Shuri being out of the way. Iron Man's already set up as the smart man for this problem, and you've got Banner there as well if you need a second for banter.

[DigoDragon]

His plan only worked because everyone else involved was a moron, but that's a fault of the entire rest of the movie, not Zemo's character.

Yeah, I'm just not a fan of the writing style where you hand out Idiot BallsTM to the heroes so that the bad guy could win.



About the only thing I picked up on was how SHOCKED Widow and Cap seemed to be to see Antman. This kind of makes me think he was supposed to die in the snap but being in the Quantum Realm protected him somehow, possibly leading to some kind of actual defense against the Gauntlet.

Schrodinger's Super Hero. :3

That might be a legit defense against the gauntlet; being in the quantum realm is kinda like you exist and don't at the same time. How to make use of that though...



He's also pretty versatile character power-wise. His moveset is street-level enough to deal with petty crims, but can also let him punch up to supervillains, and the cosmic aspects of the Quantum Realm have the potential to get him into at least striking distance of Asgard/Strange/Thanos echelons.

I can agree with that.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not sure that the quantum realm protected Antman. It may just be that the odds were in his favor.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm not sure that the quantum realm protected Antman. It may just be that the odds were in his favor.

The Thanos Games!

[Talakeal]

Captain Marvel existing actually makes a far bit of sense, given that Fury told Stark that there where other super heroes in the world in the stinger for the first movie, but as the series progressed most of the heroes we have seen were either unknown or had yet to receive their powers at that point.

[Tvtyrant]

Captain Marvel existing actually makes a far bit of sense, given that Fury told Stark that there where other super heroes in the world in the stinger for the first movie, but as the series progressed most of the heroes we have seen were either unknown or had yet to receive their powers at that point.

It makes total sense in universe. Wjen Fury revealed the Avengers Hydra immediately tried to assassinate them with railguns and then Zola got them involved in a massive conflict with the UN. Having an operative no one knows about just makes sense in the Marvel universe.

The other times she might have got involved had other circumstances. New York wasn't a world ending threat, Earth is evidently alone in having nukes and they did take out the enemy ships.

Thor 2 no one knew it was happening and it was over in like 30 minutes.

Hydra's takeover Fury was trying to reclaim control quietly, Cap decided to axe the whole program and blow up their ships in broad daylight.

Sokovia Shield was disbanded and it was over before Fury even got involved.

Civil War there was no reason for her to be involved.

All of the other films were too small of threats to bring in other Avengers much less secret hidden weapons. Antman, Spiderman, Black Panther, etc.

Infinity War the heroes held the idiot ball and didn't actually involve the UN, the US, Fury, or any other forces besides the Avengers and Wakanda.

[Eldan]

There's an interesting detail someone poitned out in the trailer.
When they watch the Antman video, the top of the screen says "1986". The theory being that Scott fell into a Time Vortex.

[Keltest]

There's an interesting detail someone poitned out in the trailer.
When they watch the Antman video, the top of the screen says "1986". The theory being that Scott fell into a Time Vortex.

Doesn't Black Widow specifically say that's a live feed?

[Anteros]

Doesn't Black Widow specifically say that's a live feed?

No, she just says it's the front door.

[Keltest]

No, she just says it's the front door.

Yeah, in response to Steve asking "is this an old message?" Context would suggest that she is confirming this is a live feed.

[Anteros]

Yeah, in response to Steve asking "is this an old message?" Context would suggest that she is confirming this is a live feed.

I agree with that, but you asked if she specifically said it was live. Which she did not.

[Eldan]

I just mean, they've done trailer trickery before.

[Lord Vukodlak]

About the only thing I picked up on was how SHOCKED Widow and Cap seemed to be to see Antman. This kind of makes me think he was supposed to die in the snap but being in the Quantum Realm protected him somehow, possibly leading to some kind of actual defense against the Gauntlet.

My guess is that Ant-man was trapped in the Q-realm for little while and Cap and Widow assumed that he must be dead because he didn't arrive sooner.

[DigoDragon]

My guess is that Ant-man was trapped in the Q-realm for little while and Cap and Widow assumed that he must be dead because he didn't arrive sooner.

Jokes on them, he arrived when Parachute Pants were still a thing. >.>

[Florian]

The other times she might have got involved had other circumstances. New York wasn't a world ending threat, Earth is evidently alone in having nukes and they did take out the enemy ships.

In general, I find this to be a flaw in the writing and execution of the MCU/Marvel in general.

Broadly speaking, most "races" seem to have developed a quite balanced mix of offense and defensive, so their "Champions" is what actually makes the difference, something that fits the general narrative here.

Basically, it means that every race that has discovered nuclear power as a power source, will also have weaponized it and then came up with a "nuclear dampener" as a counter measure. Or laser and laser eating armor. This is why they were back to war hammers and axes.

The solution of the New York scene was simply a case of bad writing and execution, that could have gone better.

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah, in response to Steve asking "is this an old message?" Context would suggest that she is confirming this is a live feed.

Of course, that assumes that what they’re looking at in the final movie is the same as the trailer.

[Legato Endless]

It's almost certain there'll be some false footage in the trailers, some of it even deliberately planted to create the wrong impression, like the shot of Hulk charging in Wakanda for Infinity War.

[DigoDragon]

The solution of the New York scene was simply a case of bad writing and execution, that could have gone better.

Maybe. It was discovered earlier in the movie that SHIELD was developing new weapons to counter alien threats. That nuclear warhead might of had an extra kick just for this kind of situation.

[Eldan]

Was it SHIELD firing that nuke, though? The sinister supercouncil of vagueness seems to me to just have fired a regular nuke. "Fury thinks the battle is lost and is forced by the council to fire a tesseract-powered supernuke" might have been a better solution, maybe.

[Spacewolf]

Was it SHIELD firing that nuke, though? The sinister supercouncil of vagueness seems to me to just have fired a regular nuke. "Fury thinks the battle is lost and is forced by the council to fire a tesseract-powered supernuke" might have been a better solution, maybe.

Well it was fired by a shield jet at the very least.

[GloatingSwine]

Maybe. It was discovered earlier in the movie that SHIELD was developing new weapons to counter alien threats. That nuclear warhead might of had an extra kick just for this kind of situation.

There's no real need to confabulate any of this.

The nuke wasn't intended to go through the portal, it was intended to deny the Chitaruri beachhead and forces in situ by destroying New York.

And there's no reason to assume that a perfectly ordinary tactical warhead of a few kilotons wouldn't have achieved that, given that even the Leviathans were vulnerable to sufficiently determined punching (and MCU hulk is not nuke level).

Also, even if the Chitauri had another wave ready to go, and being dropped off Stark tower didn't disrupt the portal in any way, they're probably going to run out of dudes before our planet runs out of nukes to blat them with, and it wouldn't be too long before one was sent through to hit them the other side.



Also, there's nothing in any of the major spacefaring technology we've seen in the MCU that pegs any of them as particularly durable by SF standards. These are not Star Wars or 40k ships that throw around multi-gigaton weapons, the Ravagers' ships in Guardians of the Galaxy have large calibre autocannon that don't seem terribly exotic in power or effect.

[DigoDragon]

The nuke wasn't intended to go through the portal, it was intended to deny the Chitaruri beachhead and forces in situ by destroying New York.

No one here has argued otherwise. If you're going to take out a city to stop the alien's portal, you'll want to hit that portal generator with the best weapon you got.



And there's no reason to assume that a perfectly ordinary tactical warhead of a few kilotons wouldn't have achieved that, given that even the Leviathans were vulnerable to sufficiently determined punching (and MCU hulk is not nuke level).

It's perfectly possible and probable that the nuke was just your typical city-incinerating type of explosive. I had found an amusing theory online once that, since the Hydra reveal within SHIELD hadn't taken place yet, the council silently approving use of an upgraded nuke would be best to ensure the Avengers were accidentally and tragically caught in the blast and killed. Purely speculation, yes, but I found it had some merit since the Helicarrier did have stores of advanced weaponry and Fury wasn't aware a crew (which might have been comprised of HYDRA agents) loaded a nuke onto a jet and let it take off.

Just interesting speculation.

[Delicious Taffy]

It's perfectly possible and probable that the nuke was just your typical city-incinerating type of explosive.
The way you said this is hilarious.

"Oh, you know, just one of those everyday household items you'd find in the average junk drawer. Spare light switch cover, some fuses, nuclear warhead with the power to incinerate the whole of New York City, scotch tape, flathead screwdriver, the usual."

[Tvtyrant]

The US alone has thousands of nukes, even if they only hit a target within the blast as hard as the Hulk punches we could kick the enemies champions around by sequencing shots until they died.

The point of the Avengers to me was they could deal with threats without killing everyone for miles around. The full force of the governments of Earth could likely stop most threats given time to mobilize, but millions of soldiers and even more civilians are going to die in each of those conflicts.

[russdm]

As far as I'm aware, I'm the only person in the cosmos who doesn't like Ant-Man, so you're not alone.

Oh, I don't like him either. My reaction to seeing him in the trailer was to go "Wait, he's alive?!" and I was allow, "Hey it's Hawkeye! Awesome, he looks cool."

Still disappointed that they didn't snap Black Widow instead of Wanda. Who would have had real reason to feel bad about everything, like if her need to hold onto Vision helped caused so many to die. Black Widow is just, meh really. She doesn't do anything really for the plot.

I always got the impression in the trailer that seeing Antman was more a reaction of dismay in Steve's of "Oh no. Not that bastard again." Do we really need more Ant jokes?

They could have just left him dead. Now we get the displeasure of seeing Antman in more movies. One Antman was more than enough.

[Tyndmyr]

I always got the impression in the trailer that seeing Antman was more a reaction of dismay in Steve's of "Oh no. Not that bastard again." Do we really need more Ant jokes?

Yes. There's no reason to be militAntly Ant-i Antman. This is making an elephAnt out of an anthill.

[The Glyphstone]

You shouldnt needlessly Antagonize people like that. Its Antithetical to advAntcing a conversation.

[Wookieetank]

One might even call it belligerAnt behavior.

[Florian]

That got me curious: What's actually the problem with Ant Man?

That guy is a clear break with Marvell tradition: He is more or less a badass normal, the power and abilities come from the suit, an entirely external power source he owes to Hank.

Broadly speaking, this is a slight problem to verisimilitude because it didn't need super soldier serum treatment, being bitten by a radioactive spider or implanting a miniature arc reactor in your chest. Don´t even go let us go towards being born a god or or the training montage from hell.

I like the two main movies, they showcase that no everything most be a world-ending or world-shattering threat and that things within the MCU can be both, light-hearted and serious at the same time.

.... damn truth serum.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, I certainly cAnt stir up Antipathy!

He's not that unique. Hawkeye's actual powers are what, good vision? Romonov has a special ops background, Bucky likewise has fairly little built in power. A metal arm is cool and all, but he's about 90% fleshy human. If we're treating guys with cool power-suits as normals, then War Machine is a pretty apples for apples comparison, and of course Falcon's in the same league.

Even in the MCU, I believe he's hardly a break from tradition. Of course, I also don't see a problem with him as a character.

[AdmiralCheez]

Granted, I haven't see Ant Man's standalone movies, but from what I saw of him in Civil War (was it Civil War?) and the various trailers he's been in, I just find him kind of obnoxious and grating, and not particularly interesting to me to begin with. Maybe that's an unfair assessment, but I just have no real desire to see more of him.

[Darth Credence]

For me, the problem with Ant Man is that they are not even trying for internal consistency. With most of the others, if you accept the premise of why they have their powers, everything else works. Tony Stark is a genius designer who has come up with a nearly unlimited portable power supply, so he can make suits that do almost anything. Thor is a god, and can do what a god can do. The super soldier serum makes Cap very strong and durable, so he can act as a hero but not do things like fly. For the most part, the explanations are very basic, so they don't get in the way of the plot.
Then we have Ant Man. They say that the way the suit works is to remove empty space within the atoms, which allows for things to shrink while still retaining mass so the punches actually do something. Then they have things like carrying a full sized, and should be full mass, tank as a keychain. Or a 200 lb man riding an ant like a horse without it being crushed instantly. Or on the flip side, an ant that weighs a milligram or so and is suddenly the size of a dog should shoot up like a weather balloon. And finally, the quantum realm is accessible by shrinking to subatomic sizes, which isn't exactly compatible with shrinking done by simply getting rid of space between atoms.
They could have gone the DC Atom route by saying that the mass gets shifted somewhere, and can be called on at need to do what the user wants, and it would have been fine. But when you firmly establish the rules for your magic, then spend the entirety of the film breaking those rules, I'm out.

[Tvtyrant]

For me, the problem with Ant Man is that they are not even trying for internal consistency. With most of the others, if you accept the premise of why they have their powers, everything else works. Tony Stark is a genius designer who has come up with a nearly unlimited portable power supply, so he can make suits that do almost anything. Thor is a god, and can do what a god can do. The super soldier serum makes Cap very strong and durable, so he can act as a hero but not do things like fly. For the most part, the explanations are very basic, so they don't get in the way of the plot.
Then we have Ant Man. They say that the way the suit works is to remove empty space within the atoms, which allows for things to shrink while still retaining mass so the punches actually do something. Then they have things like carrying a full sized, and should be full mass, tank as a keychain. Or a 200 lb man riding an ant like a horse without it being crushed instantly. Or on the flip side, an ant that weighs a milligram or so and is suddenly the size of a dog should shoot up like a weather balloon. And finally, the quantum realm is accessible by shrinking to subatomic sizes, which isn't exactly compatible with shrinking done by simply getting rid of space between atoms.
They could have gone the DC Atom route by saying that the mass gets shifted somewhere, and can be called on at need to do what the user wants, and it would have been fine. But when you firmly establish the rules for your magic, then spend the entirety of the film breaking those rules, I'm out.

I just run with the theory that Hank Pym doesn't actually know how it works. He found a magic particle, figured out how to make it operate and then wrongly and arrogantly thinks he knows how it works.

Pym's god complex is essential to his character, and he doesn't let other scientists like Banner and Stark look at his work so no one can gain say him.

[Legato Endless]

While I don't mind the character, that is one thing I'd level against Antman in that his interactions with the world are entirely arbitrary which lessens the impact of his action scenes. Thor's hammer, Strange's limited spell list in his debut, Cap's shield (before or after it got slightly nerfed), Peter's mutation, they all have general rules they follow. The MCU certainly doesn't care about avoiding dramatic license (Tony's armor is exactly as tough as the plot needs it to be) but there's mostly a loose consistency to each character with what they can and can't do.

Antman doesn't really have a physics engine in the world, I'd just prefer if there was a visual indication about how he's changing the attributes of what he's interacting with. Whereas much mass or energy have been altered just happens with whatever would be comedic or dramatically in/convenient. I don't mind Pym having no idea how the particles work, but it'd be nice for the audience to have some kinetic idea.

[Tyndmyr]

I just run with the theory that Hank Pym doesn't actually know how it works. He found a magic particle, figured out how to make it operate and then wrongly and arrogantly thinks he knows how it works.

Pym's god complex is essential to his character, and he doesn't let other scientists like Banner and Stark look at his work so no one can gain say him.

Yeah, "Pym is an arrogant jerk" covers...a lot of sins. He pretty clearly knows less than he acts like he does, or the idea that Scott tries in the first Ant Man proooobably should have occurred to him. He also has a pretty long backstory full of failures and disasters. Plus, Tony Stark has been around a much shorter time, but has apparently impacted tech a great deal more. Pym is definitely at least somewhat bumbling, even if he refuses to accept it.

I mean, I was gonna use the giant miniaturization thing as a counter-example, but then I remembered the plot revolved around ordering parts he couldn't make, whereas Stark made a complete Iron Man suit in a cave. Clearly they're not playing on the same level.

I would note that Cap's Shield's bouncing off things or punching through things is similarly arbitrary.

[Rodin]

While I don't mind the character, that is one thing I'd level against Antman in that his interactions with the world are entirely arbitrary which lessens the impact of his action scenes. Thor's hammer, Strange's limited spell list in his debut, Cap's shield (before or after it got slightly nerfed), Peter's mutation, they all have general rules they follow. The MCU certainly doesn't care about avoiding dramatic license (Tony's armor is exactly as tough as the plot needs it to be) but there's mostly a loose consistency to each character with what they can and can't do.

Antman doesn't really have a physics engine in the world, I'd just prefer if there was a visual indication about how he's changing the attributes of what he's interacting with. Whereas much mass or energy have been altered just happens with whatever would be comedic or dramatically in/convenient. I don't mind Pym having no idea how the particles work, but it'd be nice for the audience to have some kinetic idea.

I tend to just ignore the pseudo-science as much as possible and run with what they've established he can do by showing it. He can shrink down to the size of an ant without trouble, any smaller and it starts getting dangerous. His weight/mass is that of an ant-sized object, so that things like fly swatters can bat him about the same way they would an insect. And he has normal human strength in that mode, allowing him to punch out people.

The powers are fairly consistent and don't change from minute-to-minute, so I don't have a big problem with them. They just don't have a basis in real science. This is also a universe with literal Norse gods, time travel, and outright magic. My suspension of disbelief packed its bags and went on holiday long before Antman.

[Florian]

Gotta agree with Rodin. Now off to train time-traveling martial arts in china. Seems easer to become a Sorcerer Supreme and trying to come p with some kind of suit.

[Androgeus]

They just don't have a basis in real science. This is also a universe with literal Norse gods, time travel, and outright magic. My suspension of disbelief packed its bags and went on holiday long before Antman.

I’m guessing people have less problems with the other examples because they don’t dress up the powers with science as much as Ant-man does. Not that I have personally have an issue, I’ve got a pretty high suspension of disbelief.

[Darth Ultron]

They could have gone the DC Atom route by saying that the mass gets shifted somewhere, and can be called on at need to do what the user wants, and it would have been fine. But when you firmly establish the rules for your magic, then spend the entirety of the film breaking those rules, I'm out.

Well, in the comics...at least the before 2000 comics...that is how Pym Particles work. They shift the mass to another dimension.

I'm not sure the Ant Man movies have ever given a super hard core science detail on the whole process. You just get a couple of quick ''layman's explanations". Really, like most fiction.

I just don't get the whole ''champion of science" idea. Ok...every science type thing in fiction is 100 % not possible in real life. Fiction equals ''not real". So a movie says ''ok, so shrinking and growing is a thing".....and people feel the need to run back to the science books and say ''that is not possible! That is wrong!". Um...ok, it is. It's not possible, it's all fake and it's all not real. Ok..deep breath. Now just sit back and enjoy he fiction.

[Rodin]

I’m guessing people have less problems with the other examples because they don’t dress up the powers with science as much as Ant-man does. Not that I have personally have an issue, I’ve got a pretty high suspension of disbelief.

I generally have around three layers of disbelief. The first is for when a work that's supposed to be relatively realistic comes up with something outlandish - for example, the villains of Die Hard 4 hacking the entire Internet simultaneously (or whatever that absurdity was supposed to be). The second is for when a work that isn't realistic in the slightest breaks its own rules that shouldn't be difficult to follow - like Sasuke in Naruto being entirely out of chakra and then performing multiple extremely chakra-intensive techniques at a speed faster than an explosion going off less than 10 yards away. The final level is character-based - if I don't believe a character (or sometimes, any half-rational human) would act in that way, no amount of armoring myself against wacky science or in-universe rules will help. A fine example of this is in Doctor Who when Bill sells the Earth into slavery to save the Doctor's life.

The Marvel movies in general have been good about staying in between the first two lines. There has been the odd exception...pretty much everybody juggled the idiot-ball during Age of Ultron, for example. Antman, like Guardians of the Galaxy, is noticeably goofier than the rest of the franchise. Once I have that on board, it doesn't pose much of a problem.

Of course, it remains to be seen how well that will work in an ensemble movie. Antman's only previous ensemble experience was basically just the airport fight. Still, they managed to weave the GotG team in for Infinity War, so I'm confident they can bring in Antman with no difficulty.

[OutOfThyme]

I just don't get the whole ''champion of science" idea. Ok...every science type thing in fiction is 100 % not possible in real life. Fiction equals ''not real". So a movie says ''ok, so shrinking and growing is a thing".....and people feel the need to run back to the science books and say ''that is not possible! That is wrong!". Um...ok, it is. It's not possible, it's all fake and it's all not real. Ok..deep breath. Now just sit back and enjoy he fiction.I think one issue is that his powers lack internal consistency. It isn't about the science - I can accept Tony Stark's arc reactor being a futuristic generator stuck in his chest, or that vibranium is a fancy metal/alloy that can do weird things with kinetic energy - it's about how the films go about playing with the consistency of his powers.

For example, the gag with the Thomas the Tank Engine set in the first movie made a ton of sense - Yellowjacket was a fully-sized man on the table, while the train set was just a toy.

However, you flip over to the second film, and they have an entire Hot Wheels car storage container with fully functional cars. By the logic established in the first film, that thing should be impossible to carry, or the cars themselves should basically be as durable as model cars can be.

Now, the fact that there isn't logical consistency doesn't make the films less enjoyable. I wasn't as satisfied with Ant-Man and the Wasp as I was with a lot of other Marvel movies (but at least it's no Thor: The Dark World), but I chalk that up to a weaker script and acting than Ant-Man's powers making the film less enjoyable.

[Douglas]

He pretty clearly knows less than he acts like he does, or the idea that Scott tries in the first Ant Man proooobably should have occurred to him.
Which idea are you talking about? If it's "I think our first move should be calling the Avengers", that's an idea he rejected because he hates Stark, not an idea he didn't think of.

[Tvtyrant]

Which idea are you talking about? If it's "I think our first move should be calling the Avengers", that's an idea he rejected because he hates Stark, not an idea he didn't think of.

Using the growing disk to take himself out of the subatomic zone I believe. If it was simple enough Scott could do it on the fly, it was simple enough Hank should have thought of it.

[Keltest]

I think one issue is that his powers lack internal consistency. It isn't about the science - I can accept Tony Stark's arc reactor being a futuristic generator stuck in his chest, or that vibranium is a fancy metal/alloy that can do weird things with kinetic energy - it's about how the films go about playing with the consistency of his powers.

For example, the gag with the Thomas the Tank Engine set in the first movie made a ton of sense - Yellowjacket was a fully-sized man on the table, while the train set was just a toy.

However, you flip over to the second film, and they have an entire Hot Wheels car storage container with fully functional cars. By the logic established in the first film, that thing should be impossible to carry, or the cars themselves should basically be as durable as model cars can be.

Now, the fact that there isn't logical consistency doesn't make the films less enjoyable. I wasn't as satisfied with Ant-Man and the Wasp as I was with a lot of other Marvel movies (but at least it's no Thor: The Dark World), but I chalk that up to a weaker script and acting than Ant-Man's powers making the film less enjoyable.

As was mentioned earlier, if you ignore what the characters claim is happening and actually look at the interactions, its internally consistent. Yellowjacket has the size and mass of an ant, so even a plastic Thomas train could potentially hurt him. But he has the strength of a human, so he can easily just move it.

Likewise, the cars are small and have little mass, so they can be carried. And since they aren't punching anything, they aren't dangerous to have like that.

[Kitten Champion]

I watched Infinity War for the first time on Blu-Ray today. I had a moment when Doctor Strange said something like "We're entering the endgame now" to Tony where I went "Ooh~".

I had forgotten Tony was left with Nebula at the end too until it was mentioned in this thread, I couldn't remember who was or wasn't ash by the finale in general.

[Darth Ultron]

However, you flip over to the second film, and they have an entire Hot Wheels car storage container with fully functional cars. By the logic established in the first film, that thing should be impossible to carry, or the cars themselves should basically be as durable as model cars can be.


Right, but the way your looking at it does not make any sense to me.

You watched the first movie and saw and heard some super hard science rule in the Ant-Verse that can never ever be changed or modified and must be followed at all times. You make a big mental note of this ''rule", and then keep it in mind when watching the next movie. And then when you see something that ''breaks the rule", you leap up with the ''AH ha!".

What I don't get is why you can't just accept the ''problem rule" existed...but the character just fixed it. Even if we did not get a whole five minute ''lesson" on how it was done where they put the word ''quantum" in front of everything. Like in movie one character A burns a piece of paper with a fire. Then in movie two character B can't light piece of paper on fire. So you'd cry out ''Ah ha"...but yet would never think..oh made the paper in movie two was soaking wet?

[ben-zayb]

I watched Infinity War for the first time on Blu-Ray today. I had a moment when Doctor Strange said something like "We're entering the endgame now" to Tony where I went "Ooh~".

I had forgotten Tony was left with Nebula at the end too until it was mentioned in this thread, I couldn't remember who was or wasn't ash by the finale in general.

While that "Endgame" keyword was already in a well-known quote in Avengers 3, some people pointed out that Tony Stark also mentioned it way back in Avengers 2, referencing his last act heroics in Avengers 1. Hell of a coincidence, if at all.

[Florian]

I'm not sure the Ant Man movies have ever given a super hard core science detail on the whole process. You just get a couple of quick ''layman's explanations". Really, like most fiction.

DU, the apparent problem here is they gave initial explanation of how and why what they show us breaks the laws of physics and offered an excuse for not dropping the ball when it comes to disbelieve and verisimilitude, then they've gone out there and broken the deal by what they have shown us.

It´s fully acceptable to say that you don't have to possess any special kind of power, the Pym Particle and how the suits work will do the job: You shrink, your relative might/Strength grows exponentially to that, same principle as with an ant. No biggie there. The initial movie actually handled that well, with the exception of the scene handling the toy train.

The problems start with the toy train, but is rather exemplified by growing to Giant Size in Civil War and Ant Man and the Wasp. Basically, once we have established the fact that this tech works on a certain ratio and, with shrinking being the power multiplier based on that core explanation, it looks odd when we have giant form that is suddenly powerful because of size alone, disregarding the conversion principle that was established earlier.

[Chen]

It´s fully acceptable to say that you don't have to possess any special kind of power, the Pym Particle and how the suits work will do the job: You shrink, your relative might/Strength grows exponentially to that, same principle as with an ant. No biggie there. The initial movie actually handled that well, with the exception of the scene handling the toy train.

There are plenty of inconsistencies in the first movie. Carrying the tank around, Ant Man running on the barrel of a gun, him riding ants at all. The explanation they gave in the first movie just plain does not work. They should probably have just handwaved it away and said something like “you keep your own ‘strength’” or something similarly vague. Still problematic with giant man vs ant man dischotomies though.

[Dr.Samurai]

LMAO

Tony Stark building a reactor the size of a baseball in a cave, from scraps, and using it to power a mech-suit instead of solving all of the world's problems is okay.

But Pym Particles... well, how is he running on a gun but also keeping his regular strength while tiny??

[The Glyphstone]

LMAO

Tony Stark building a reactor the size of a baseball in a cave, from scraps, and using it to power a mech-suit instead of solving all of the world's problems is okay.

But Pym Particles... well, how is he running on a gun but also keeping his regular strength while tiny??

The difference, I think, is in the degree they try to justify it.

Tony Stark builds a reactor in a cave from a box of scraps because He's Smart Dammit, Now Shut Up.

Hank Pym builds a shrinking suit because of Pym Particles, which work in this specific way according to him except when the plot/laugh track says they work differently.

It's the unspoken compact that a movie which has no rules can do whatever it wants, but a movie that defines its rules is implicitly expected to obey the rules it establishes.

[Delicious Taffy]

LMAO

Tony Stark building a reactor the size of a baseball in a cave, from scraps, and using it to power a mech-suit instead of solving all of the world's problems is okay.

But Pym Particles... well, how is he running on a gun but also keeping his regular strength while tiny??
Being selfish with your own invention is the same thing as using nonsense particles.

[Rakaydos]

The difference, I think, is in the degree they try to justify it.

Tony Stark builds a reactor in a cave from a box of scraps because He's Smart Dammit, Now Shut Up.

Hank Pym builds a shrinking suit because of Pym Particles, which work in this specific way according to him except when the plot/laugh track says they work differently.

It's the unspoken compact that a movie which has no rules can do whatever it wants, but a movie that defines its rules is implicitly expected to obey the rules it establishes.

Which brings us back to "Hank Pym is full of crap... and also an ahole," as a viable theory.

[Florian]

Being selfish with your own invention is the same thing as using nonsense particles.

You've missed the underlying critique there. One case is trying to work within a particular set of boundaries, the case is explicitly allowing someone to go way above and beyond boundaries. Both come attached with quite a large "For Reasons" sticker.

[Darth Ultron]

It's the unspoken compact that a movie which has no rules can do whatever it wants, but a movie that defines its rules is implicitly expected to obey the rules it establishes.

I think the problem is ''the rules". The idea that, for some reason, the movie must have ''rules". And worse, that somehow, the couple ''rules" that get mentioned are All the rules that will ever exist in that movie.

Iron Mans powers are based on tech, just like Ant man's, and in every movie Iron Man can do new and different things. And yet no one has a problem with the ''sudden new powers". The same is true of Black Widow and Hawkeye, who both use technology.

And when it comes to technology, things can change. If movie A says ''well the car can go 50 mph", it does not mean that that car is stuck forever at that speed. If in movie B the car goes 100 mph, you don't jump up and say ''the rules of movie A say that is impossible forever!". Why is it so hard to understand that technology can change and improve over the rough year or so between movies? Even without the movie wasting time with the ''ok, rule folk, character A took some time during the year to add a booster to the car, sigh, ok, happy now".

And it's odd the characters like Dr. Strange never get this ''rule" problem. Oddly people have no problem with Strange just ''casting another spell".

[Anteros]

I think the problem is ''the rules". The idea that, for some reason, the movie must have ''rules". And worse, that somehow, the couple ''rules" that get mentioned are All the rules that will ever exist in that movie.

Iron Mans powers are based on tech, just like Ant man's, and in every movie Iron Man can do new and different things. And yet no one has a problem with the ''sudden new powers". The same is true of Black Widow and Hawkeye, who both use technology.

And when it comes to technology, things can change. If movie A says ''well the car can go 50 mph", it does not mean that that car is stuck forever at that speed. If in movie B the car goes 100 mph, you don't jump up and say ''the rules of movie A say that is impossible forever!". Why is it so hard to understand that technology can change and improve over the rough year or so between movies? Even without the movie wasting time with the ''ok, rule folk, character A took some time during the year to add a booster to the car, sigh, ok, happy now".

And it's odd the characters like Dr. Strange never get this ''rule" problem. Oddly people have no problem with Strange just ''casting another spell".

You're missing the point. Iron Man and Strange show abilities and growth that are consistent with their skills. They don't explicitly establish limitations and then ignore them like Ant Man does.

It would be like if Dr Strange had a scene about how manipulating time is impossible, even with the stone...and then based the climax of his movie on manipulating time. It's bad writing.

[Keltest]

You're missing the point. Iron Man and Strange show abilities and growth that are consistent with their skills. They don't explicitly establish limitations and then ignore them like Ant Man does.

It would be like if Dr Strange had a scene about how manipulating time is impossible, even with the stone...and then based the climax of his movie on manipulating time. It's bad writing.

I mean, Ant Man established the "rules" and then promptly ignored them. Regardless of how you headcanon it, its never actually followed the stated explanation, but it has been internally consistent in how it performs.

[Anteros]

I mean, Ant Man established the "rules" and then promptly ignored them. Regardless of how you headcanon it, its never actually followed the stated explanation, but it has been internally consistent in how it performs.

Haha no it isn't. Sometimes he has the mass of a man and other times he can ride an ant and carry a tank on his keychain. It's only "consistent" to the made up arbitrary rules in this thread that are never established in the movie at all.

You're essentially arguing that it's consistent...as long as we ignore what the movie says and go with fan fiction instead.

[Keltest]

Haha no it isn't. Sometimes he has the mass of a man and other times he can ride an ant and carry a tank on his keychain. It's only "consistent" to the made up arbitrary rules in this thread that are never established in the movie at all.

You're essentially arguing that it's consistent...as long as we ignore what the movie says and go with fan fiction instead.

He never has the mass of a man outside of when he punches something or is full size. Its not even a selective thing he can do, he always punches with full size strength, and when he's small he always acts like he's lightweight as well, with the single, consistent exception of the punching. He doesn't sometimes have the mass of a man when somebody swats him or anything.

[Dr.Samurai]

Guys, Stark has nano-technology, and near limitless energy (or limitless, IDK). Nothing in the MCU is consistent with that. Why doesn't Black Widow have a super nano-stealth spy armor suit? Why isn't Hawkeye shooting missile arrows that can detonate with the force of a nuclear explosion? Why isn't Tony flying around with an omnipotent utility fog that can take the form of an army of Iron Man suits when he needs it?

Hank gave Scott a BS explanation because Scott is a thief and not a scientist. Obviously the particles don't work the way he said. Move on lol.

[Florian]

Ok, let my try to take a different approach. There a two very different things, that have a very different appeal: A hero with strict limits and a more or less limitless hero.

The appeal for the hero with limits is that we measure everything that happens in the narrative by how close they come to beat those limits and the heroics by how the limits are overcome.

The appeal of the limitless hero is by being amazed by the opposition/problem/whatever and with what can be come up/invented/done to overcome that as part of the narrative.

Ant Man should be an example of the hero with limits, that's why he should stay and work within the boundaries set by those limits, while Iron Man is an example for the limitless hero and the fun is watching what suits and tech he comes up with.

[Legato Endless]

I tend to just ignore the pseudo-science as much as possible and run with what they've established he can do by showing it.

Yeah, that's always an excellent rule of thumb.


Hank gave Scott a BS explanation because Scott is a thief and not a scientist. Obviously the particles don't work the way he said. Move on lol.

What's funny is Hank's explanation is more convoluted than what seems to be happening. So it's less he's over simplifying and more he's ******* around with someone who can't call him on it.

For that's matter, Scott's actually reasonably educated with a master's in Electrical Engineering, improvises some basic chemistry to break into Hank's vault, and was a successful systems engineer who hacked a corporation. Scott almost certainly has more scientific grounding than any of the Avengers who aren't super scientists. But this isn't impressive because he comes into contact with a lot of super scientists. It's not really a matter of intelligence so much as he's got no grounding in this relevant field so Hank can yank him around just for kicks. Which admittedly seems perfectly in character for Pym.


He never has the mass of a man outside of when he punches something or is full size. Its not even a selective thing he can do, he always punches with full size strength, and when he's small he always acts like he's lightweight as well, with the single, consistent exception of the punching.

Opening sequence. Scott is very light when he's swept around by the water or the vinyl disc. He's considerably denser when he cracks the bathroom floor after the water has shoved him out of the tub. He's not punching anything. Just getting smacked into the floor.


He doesn't sometimes have the mass of a man when somebody swats him or anything.

Right after the above, he's catapulted by a mouse trap into shattering a window and lands with an audible thud onto a car. The better explanation to me is that Pym particles can increase or decrease mass and do so independent of the size shifting. That best fits with every interaction unless I'm missing something.

[Tvtyrant]

Trailer is confirmed to be so boring we have now spent multiple pages talking about Ant-Man. Perhaps they should have killed some Avengers sooner so Stark dying felt like legitimate tension.

I do think Marvel would have been better served making micro-universes where certain characters team up and not just side with the big guys. Ant-Man, Spiderman, Guardians of the Galaxy and Nu-Thor are way sillier then James Bond Captain and the Shield cast, or Old-Hulk and alcoholic Iron Man.

Moving the entire setting to shiney quip land characters limits their options. Banner being funny I particularly felt missed what was cool about the character.

[ben-zayb]

For that's matter, Scott's actually reasonably educated with a master's in Electrical Engineering,It's hard not to put this (academic) claim under scrutiny when he shows difficulty in grasping even the simple hypotheticals of his universe's version of quantum mechanics. EE, alongside its IEEE brethren, is easily one of the engineering disciplines that leans expertise towards quantum theory.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ant Man should be an example of the hero with limits, that's why he should stay and work within the boundaries set by those limits, while Iron Man is an example for the limitless hero and the fun is watching what suits and tech he comes up with.
To your point, I actually don't like that Iron Man gets a major upgrade every movie. I liked that his armored suit basically just protected him from blasts and shot missiles and concussive blasts. In other words, I preferred him as a hero with limits.

A tech-based hero without limits just always begs the question of why they aren't radically changing the world for the better. Look at Wakanda with their vibranium. Tony could be doing that a thousand times over for the rest of the world, since his arc reactors seem to be as easily replicated as a common battery.

Similar to Stark, I like Antman when he is just a tiny guy that can still punch people. The quantum realm opening up super powers and time travel and stuff takes it too far for me. But be that as it may, I still like the characters so.


For that's matter, Scott's actually reasonably educated with a master's in Electrical Engineering, improvises some basic chemistry to break into Hank's vault, and was a successful systems engineer who hacked a corporation.
I thought to myself "DocSam, you better fact check yourself before you post this comment, or else someone is going to come in here and tell you that actually Scott is a genius scientist..." But I was too lazy. I thought... at best he's a mechanical engineer, but still not an expert in particle science :smallamused:.

Trailer is confirmed to be so boring we have now spent multiple pages talking about Ant-Man.
Lmao, very true.

Also agree about other point; "everyone is quippy" is not great.

[russdm]

LMAO

Tony Stark building a reactor the size of a baseball in a cave, from scraps, and using it to power a mech-suit instead of solving all of the world's problems is okay.

Because the scraps were from weapons Stark's company made? So he would how to use them and work with them? Also know or be aware of the dangers?

Antman guy, has this desire to join the Avengers and given all of the garbage they go through, why would he want to? Then, he has a pretty by the numbers Comic Hero plot: Worries about family, about loved; meets some mentor guy who has another student person who turned out evil; fights other student; rinse and repeat.

Plus, really didn't find much of the character really. What defines him beyond having a kid he worries about and needing money, and used to be criminal? How much does that end up applying really? He tries to rob Pym's place, fails, and suddenly that qualifies him to learn about Pym's secret stuff? Really? Wouldn't Pym's stuff be actually worth a lot of money, enough to set Antman well off? So why all the hero stuff?

And then he needs to stop Pym's whatever from the selling the stuff he knows to the government, because why again? What was the reason? To keep it safe for something? Keep it safe from Stark?

Is that really how former superheroes go about getting a student? Pick the first person to apparently break-in and do X or Y? What was stopping Scott (Was it? I forgot his name) from just leaving when he can and selling it all? I mean, the US government or any government in the MCU would big monies for it, and none have been shown so far to care about ethics really. Like if it was stolen material at all. With Pym not interested in selling, and the US gov buying, would they really not just say "How much do you want?" if Scott showed up with Pym's stuff?

[Dr.Samurai]

Because the scraps were from weapons Stark's company made? So he would how to use them and work with them? Also know or be aware of the dangers?
What does a fuel-less seemingly limitless source of power operate like? Do you feel the arc reactor has been dealt with in a consistent manner in the MCU? That's the point. Stark made one of these from scraps in a cave. I appreciate that he is familiar with the tech. The point is that he made a fuel-less limitless power source from scraps in a cave. Is it that easy to make a power source like that? Is Stark that much a genius? Either way, what impact has it had in the world in the eight years since he's created it? Nothing.

It hasn't even impacted his team. With the exception of maybe Spider-man, but I don't know if the Iron Spider suit uses an Arc Reactor.

This is not consistent. That is *serious* tech that is hand-waived away except for Tony's suit.

I get the worrying about Pym particles and consistency. But it's hardly the most egregious example. Vibranium has allowed Wakanda to isolate itself and become a tech-paradise. Arc reactors would do the same for the rest of the world. So if you're going to nit-pick Pym particles, you might as well nit-pick the fact that Stark has done ****-all with the ability to create a seemingly endless supply of limitless power sources.

EDIT: And don't forget nano-particles lol.

[Tvtyrant]

Vibranium works differently in every single film of it.

First it is indestructible and reflects all energy off of it (Avengers), then it reflects most energy but not all (Winter Soldier). then it absorbs energy but explodes given enough (Age of Ultron). then it can draw and release energy like a super-conductor as well as still being indestructible and can cut through anything (black panther.)



The best part is they don't pass that or the iron man tech around even to the avengers. Vision is the only fusion of the two.

Wanda in an invincible suit would be unstoppable, Black Widow has to pick up enemy laser guns in each movie, even The Hulk and Thor could use some invincible armor.

[The Glyphstone]

Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

[Tvtyrant]

Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

Is it okay if I sig this?

[The Glyphstone]

Go for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1yo2Tlj9TY

Special edition version of the trailer.

[Devonix]

What does a fuel-less seemingly limitless source of power operate like? Do you feel the arc reactor has been dealt with in a consistent manner in the MCU? That's the point. Stark made one of these from scraps in a cave. I appreciate that he is familiar with the tech. The point is that he made a fuel-less limitless power source from scraps in a cave. Is it that easy to make a power source like that? Is Stark that much a genius? Either way, what impact has it had in the world in the eight years since he's created it? Nothing.

It hasn't even impacted his team. With the exception of maybe Spider-man, but I don't know if the Iron Spider suit uses an Arc Reactor.

This is not consistent. That is *serious* tech that is hand-waived away except for Tony's suit.

I get the worrying about Pym particles and consistency. But it's hardly the most egregious example. Vibranium has allowed Wakanda to isolate itself and become a tech-paradise. Arc reactors would do the same for the rest of the world. So if you're going to nit-pick Pym particles, you might as well nit-pick the fact that Stark has done ****-all with the ability to create a seemingly endless supply of limitless power sources.

EDIT: And don't forget nano-particles lol.

A strange thing is that they've partially covered this. In the first Avengers movie Stark builds an Arc reactor capable of powering New york yet it's never mentioned later. The entire planet should have clean free, limitless energy right now. That's what the world nations should be after, not flying suits, but something that removes the need for any other resource.

[Keltest]

Vibranium works differently in every single film of it.

First it is indestructible and reflects all energy off of it (Avengers), then it reflects most energy but not all (Winter Soldier). then it absorbs energy but explodes given enough (Age of Ultron). then it can draw and release energy like a super-conductor as well as still being indestructible and can cut through anything (black panther.)



The best part is they don't pass that or the iron man tech around even to the avengers. Vision is the only fusion of the two.

Wanda in an invincible suit would be unstoppable, Black Widow has to pick up enemy laser guns in each movie, even The Hulk and Thor could use some invincible armor.

Actually, I believe that has an explanation. Cap's shield isn't pure vibranium, at least in the comics, its an alloy with (I think) iron and adamantium. What we see in AoU and Black Panther is Raw Vibranium, which acts differently than its various refined states, which is what the Wakandans use. This is far more visible in the comics where they can just have the talking heads give an exposition dump, and I don't know if the adamantium bit is canon for the MCU because of the X-Men legal stuff, but in the material it draws from, this isn't all just one flavor of Vibranium.

[Tvtyrant]

Actually, I believe that has an explanation. Cap's shield isn't pure vibranium, at least in the comics, its an alloy with (I think) iron and adamantium. What we see in AoU and Black Panther is Raw Vibranium, which acts differently than its various refined states, which is what the Wakandans use. This is far more visible in the comics where they can just have the talking heads give an exposition dump, and I don't know if the adamantium bit is canon for the MCU because of the X-Men legal stuff, but in the material it draws from, this isn't all just one flavor of Vibranium.

Caps shield doesn't always work the same way in the same movie. In Avengers it deflects Thor's hammer strike which would have flattened him like a bug if it retained momentum, and hurls the energy around destroying trees. A handgrenade later in the same movie throws him out a window and the shield doesn't reflect the explosion.

In his next movie he gets knocked over by a kick to his shield.

I'm sure there are some explanation to it, I just don't think Ant-Man looks more egregious in the films than Vibranium does.

[Keltest]

Caps shield doesn't always work the same way in the same movie. In Avengers it deflects Thor's hammer strike which would have flattened him like a bug if it retained momentum, and hurls the energy around destroying trees. A handgrenade later in the same movie throws him out a window and the shield doesn't reflect the explosion.

In his next movie he gets knocked over by a kick to his shield.

I'm sure there are some explanation to it, I just don't think Ant-Man looks more egregious in the films than Vibranium does.
The grenade could be explained by him being in the air and not completely behind the shield. I don't recall the scene in Winter Soldier where he gets kicked.

But yes, Ant Man does not stand out particularly strongly as being inconsistent with his powers.

[Rakaydos]

What the Ant man continuity needed was Goliath, when shouting at Pym, to throw in something like "you dont even know the difference between inertial and gravatational mass." with a reply that "there IS no difference, you-" "Guys, guys, stop!"

In our universe, there is no difference- inertial mass=gravatational mass. But pym particles appear to reduce gravatational mass (you are lighter) but still let you impact things with force (inertial mass).

Pym and goliath having different ideas ow their tech works,and pym actually having the wrong explanation, makes sense in my mind. too bad the movies dont back me up.

[Devonix]

I don't really worry about science stuff or powers not making sense. It's a movie, How they work isn't as important as what the story does with them.

My bigger worry is that the existance of them have a realistic impact on the story and universe.

[Chen]

In our universe, there is no difference- inertial mass=gravatational mass. But pym particles appear to reduce gravatational mass (you are lighter) but still let you impact things with force (inertial mass).


This does seem to line up pretty well, except the whole tank on a keychain thing would tear through your pocket every time you took a quick turn (or really just stood up). But it is more consistent than the BS they use in the movie.

[Rakaydos]

This does seem to line up pretty well, except the whole tank on a keychain thing would tear through your pocket every time you took a quick turn (or really just stood up). But it is more consistent than the BS they use in the movie.

You are assuming it was originally an actual tank. If it was originally a keychain he enlarged, modified, and shrunk again, it would be easier to move, but also doesn't involve a tank disappearing from a military base while pym was lying low.

Same applies to the Hot Wheels in the second movie. Having a hot wheels sized inertial mass would make them corner better than any real car.

[Keltest]

You are assuming it was originally an actual tank. If it was originally a keychain he enlarged, modified, and shrunk again, it would be easier to move, but also doesn't involve a tank disappearing from a military base while pym was lying low.

Same applies to the Hot Wheels in the second movie. Having a hot wheels sized inertial mass would make them corner better than any real car.

I feel like making a tank out of plastic kind of loses you most of the benefits of having a tank.

[Chen]

You are assuming it was originally an actual tank. If it was originally a keychain he enlarged, modified, and shrunk again, it would be easier to move, but also doesn't involve a tank disappearing from a military base while pym was lying low.

Same applies to the Hot Wheels in the second movie. Having a hot wheels sized inertial mass would make them corner better than any real car.

The tank broke out of a concrete building in the first movie. Don't think it was an enlarged toy. Same for the hot wheels. They were able to flip a real car over when enlarging themselves which I don't think would work for the inertial mass of a toy car...course now that I think about it it's not clear why that worked at all...

[Tyndmyr]

Actually, I believe that has an explanation. Cap's shield isn't pure vibranium, at least in the comics, its an alloy with (I think) iron and adamantium. What we see in AoU and Black Panther is Raw Vibranium, which acts differently than its various refined states, which is what the Wakandans use. This is far more visible in the comics where they can just have the talking heads give an exposition dump, and I don't know if the adamantium bit is canon for the MCU because of the X-Men legal stuff, but in the material it draws from, this isn't all just one flavor of Vibranium.

Even in the same film, Vibranium doesn't always do the same thing. For instance, it's explicitly called out as being what makes the little healing balls heal people. Shoving a battery into someone would not remove gunshot wounds, so it's a fairly distinct power apart from energy or durability. There's also a lot of broader credit given to vibranium for wakandian tech in general, but that's not quite so precise. It does seem to power trains, work well as a flexible body suit, and form a component of ray-beam weaponry.

It's difficult to imagine a substance with broader powers.

I don't overall, have much concern about ant-man specifically being consistent. I pretty much get his powerset. However, the original wasp...how did she live there so long? If it were a suspended in time thing, cool, I'm down with that. However, it appears that she aged...while living in her original costume. It opens up a lot of questions, at any rate. The quantum realm is pretty open ended as it currently stands.

[Wookieetank]

The quantum realm is pretty open ended as it currently stands.

I've found that a lot of fiction uses "quantum" in place of "magic" to give things more of a sci-fi feel than a fantasy one. And more often than not, that's about the only difference I've noticed in the two.

[Starbuck_II]

So you opinion on the man is small?:smallwink:

Lame jokes aside I can't wait to see how this retcon the last movie as well as retcons the fact that apparently Captain Marvel has been around since the 90s but didn't appeared in any film (including Avengers I, II, and III) before.

X-Men have been around just as long but they weren't in Avengers either. You can chalk that up to prejudice though.




Well, Hawkeye just doesn't have a lot of character in the movies. He's just... a guy. Pretty straight-laced, but that's Cap's schtick. His abilities also don't lend themselves well to putting him front and center, whereas Cap, as a guy that punches stuff and blocks things with his shield, is more in the thick of things.

They tried to do more in Age of Ultron but I don't think just showing that he has a wife and kids adds all that much personality to the character. So I hope we don't get too much of Arrow McBlandman in Avengers 4.

But Hawkeye has extra superpowers. He even made a song about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ27iS1mkuo

[deuterio12]

Even in the same film, Vibranium doesn't always do the same thing. For instance, it's explicitly called out as being what makes the little healing balls heal people. Shoving a battery into someone would not remove gunshot wounds, so it's a fairly distinct power apart from energy or durability. There's also a lot of broader credit given to vibranium for wakandian tech in general, but that's not quite so precise. It does seem to power trains, work well as a flexible body suit, and form a component of ray-beam weaponry.

It's difficult to imagine a substance with broader powers.


Carbon can be found in the form of coal (fuel), diamonds (super hard shiny stuff), carbon nanotubes (light and flexible), graphene (still figuring out the properties of that one), then mix in water and a tiny bit of metals and you get millions of different organic molecules with all kinds of properties.

So yes I can buy that all the different vibranium techs are different atomic structures and the right kind of doping/impurities added for more exotic stuff. Probably a significant amount of the vibranium tech is not 100% vibranium but rather 90% vibranium/2% X/ 8% Y that can produce widely different results depending on what you mix in.

[Frozen_Feet]

The most abundant metals tend to be just as versatile. Take a moment to think of everything we make out of iron. Or copper. Or aluminium. Or titanium.

A single element can do a lot and can serve as a backbone for a technological and cultural revolution... as did happen several times in real history.

[Devonix]

The study of vibranium jumpstared their understanding of technology. However bit isn't in all their tech.

But also its just a maguffin element. It doesn't really matter if it makes sense. The only thing that matters is what stories it allows them to tell.

[Mightymosy]

I've found that a lot of fiction uses "quantum" in place of "magic" to give things more of a sci-fi feel than a fantasy one. And more often than not, that's about the only difference I've noticed in the two.

I think you are right :smallsmile:

[deuterio12]

The most abundant metals tend to be just as versatile. Take a moment to think of everything we make out of iron. Or copper. Or aluminium. Or titanium.

A single element can do a lot and can serve as a backbone for a technological and cultural revolution... as did happen several times in real history.

Well, with iron is the other way around, we use it a lot because it's the most common metal on Earth (around 2/3 of our planet's mass, even if most of it is the lower mantles and nucleus, still a lot near the surface). Iron's not really the best for anything when compared to stuff like copper/aluminium/titanium, but if you want true mass-production, then tough luck, iron's the only metal you can reliably harvest in big amounts. Quantity does have a quality of its own.

[Saintheart]

Carbon can be found in the form of coal (fuel), diamonds (super hard shiny stuff), carbon nanotubes (light and flexible), graphene (still figuring out the properties of that one), then mix in water and a tiny bit of metals and you get millions of different organic molecules with all kinds of properties.

So yes I can buy that all the different vibranium techs are different atomic structures and the right kind of doping/impurities added for more exotic stuff. Probably a significant amount of the vibranium tech is not 100% vibranium but rather 90% vibranium/2% X/ 8% Y that can produce widely different results depending on what you mix in.

It warms my heart that someone with a name similar to Deuterium is commenting on different atomic structures. :smallcool:



To your point, I actually don't like that Iron Man gets a major upgrade every movie. I liked that his armored suit basically just protected him from blasts and shot missiles and concussive blasts. In other words, I preferred him as a hero with limits.

A tech-based hero without limits just always begs the question of why they aren't radically changing the world for the better. Look at Wakanda with their vibranium. Tony could be doing that a thousand times over for the rest of the world, since his arc reactors seem to be as easily replicated as a common battery.

Then I guess it's time to try and speculate on the character's psychology. There are maybe one or two threads we can pull on to at least fig-leaf why Tony Stark isn't actually out saving the world with free energy.

First thread, maybe explanatory, maybe not: Tony is a narcissist. That aspect of him has never disappeared, no matter how many people he saves, no matter how many redemption arcs he goes through, no matter whether he becomes a father figure to the sad little excuse they got in to replace Andrew Garfield (parenthood might cure your immaturity, but it rarely if ever cures narcissism). Tony Stark is always and everywhere interested in the image he projects to others, he wants them to accept his brand first and foremost, he wants to be the main character of his own movie. There are few selfless things that we see him do throughout the series: even in Civil War his desire to put the Avengers in check is a projection of the fact a stranger -- the mother to the dead kid in Sekovia -- doesn't see him the way he wants to be seen. Even down to the last appeal he makes to (a narcissist of a different form) Steve Rogers: "You'll come with us because it's us." i.e. Because it's me, because this is my movie and you are supporting cast.

How would Tony Stark describe himself? No need for speculation, Steve Rogers asks him who he is without the suit in the first Avengers film: "Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist." Unfortunately Joss Whedon then chooses to include a reaction shot of Black Widow seeming to be turned on by this assertion, but anyway: four words. Four labels. All brands. Not things he does, not intrinsic character traits. Just brands. The selection of these four words is crucial: they're the sort of labels that Tony thinks impresses people, because those are what he wants people to think about him.

Why does narcissism explain Tony failing to mass-distribute the arc reactor technology? Because of the one brilliant insight that the film The Incredibles delivered: if everyone is special, no one is. Tony having given out the technology would then mean he's not special; the world is just like him, or rather, he's not the centre of the universe anymore. While he holds onto the Arc Reactor technology, he's a hero. When he doesn't, everyone gets limitless energy, nobody has to ask him for that favour anymore. "Oh, but he's a genius inventor, he can invent other stuff!" Ah, but only one piece of technology makes him special in his own mind: the technology that his father gave to him in part, the technology that is quite literally close to his heart. The technology that he really is nothing without ... or rather, the technology that he thinks makes him special and the centre of the universe. The suits might not be efficient without the arc reactor, but the suits - as Iron Man 2 shows us - can be made by others.

"But he gave his technology to Spider-Man!"
Excellent observation. Why?
Why hand over very powerful technology to a fourteen-year-old kid who's only been doing this for six months?
Why not hand it over to people you have explicitly called your "friends"?

Maybe for much the same reasons as ageing men often go out with 19 year old girls, or the same reasons as ageing women often go out with 19 year old boys: because the ageing narcissist wants above all else to be seen as something, and young kids can't see through who you are anywhere near as easily as the adults you've been hanging around with for years can.

Second thread, maybe more obvious on the films, but in my view ultimately just an excuse that Tony uses: the Bad Things the technology could be used for. Basically ever since Tony built his first miniaturised arc reactor, the people who've acquired it have been going bad. Obadiah Stane literally pulled the damn thing out of his chest and used it to power a killing machine; Whiplash/whatever character Mickey Rourke was playing from moment to moment duplicated the technology and immediately used it to also power a killing machine. The government tries to seize his property as well.

On the surface you could say that this pattern is the films' justification for Tony not giving over his technology for free use - because he can't trust anyone but himself with the tech - but I think it works better as the excuse that Tony uses for not giving the tech over. It's essential to his narcissistic personality that he retains the technology and retains control over it. When he tried to create Ultron, he was trying to create a force for world peace under his control. He didn't give the technology to others, he wanted to build something that would continue to leave him as the centre of the universe. "I have successfully privatised world peace!" Even when the Avengers signed the Sokovia Accords, notice he still didn't hand over his technology to them.

[deuterio12]

It warms my heart that someone with a name similar to Deuterium is commenting on different atomic structures.

It warms my heart that someone thinks that deuterium and deuterio are different things (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deut%C3%A9rio).:smallwink:

[Saintheart]

It warms my heart that someone thinks that deuterium and deuterio are different things (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deut%C3%A9rio).:smallwink:

Well, they are different, albeit I'll grant you Deuterio is just Deuterium with more style. :smallbiggrin:

[Foeofthelance]

A strange thing is that they've partially covered this. In the first Avengers movie Stark builds an Arc reactor capable of powering New york yet it's never mentioned later. The entire planet should have clean free, limitless energy right now. That's what the world nations should be after, not flying suits, but something that removes the need for any other resource.

To paraphrase, "Any sufficiently advanced power source is indistinguishable from a really big gun."

Iron Man 2 went in to why Stark is very limited on handing out his technology. On one hand, yes, it would mean no one ever has to worry about their power bill ever again. On the other hand, it also means that no one ever has to worry about reloading their tank-killing laser weapons ever again. Now look at Stark's experiences in the MCU:

Iron Man: "Tony! I stole your power supply and made a bigger weapon of mass destruction to sell after the terrorists I hired to kill you the first time failed!"

Iron Man 2: "Tony! We gave one of your early experimental suits to your business rival, who gave the technology to a mad Russian! Then they both tried to kill you with it!"

Avengers: "Hi, we're SHIELD and we've got an entire department dedicated to making high powered weapons from a power source we don't entirely understand! Oh, there's also a mad Norse god who is hijacking your power plant so we can all play the world's largest game of space invaders!"

Winter Soldier: "Hi, Tony, its SHIELD again. Those three ARC reactor powered helicarriers you helped us build? Yeah, turns out we've been harboring the world's oldest terrorist organization and had to crash them into the river..."

Ultron: "Daddy! I've stolen all your ARC powered drones and are using them in a plot to wipe out humanity!"

So it makes sense that he keeps the technology increasingly more closely to his vest with each movie. If Stark installed free cell phone charging stations all across NYC, someone like AIM or HYDRA would be using it to be driving up insurance costs within a week.

[Wookieetank]

So after watching Infinity War for the 2nd time yesterday, and having seen the trailer for Endgame, the wife and I almost simultaneously had an "ah-ha!" moment, and we're both rather convinced that Captain Marvel is going to be the one saving Stark on her way to earth. Granted this is just speculation, but with how much effort went into keeping Stark alive at the end of Infinity War, neither of us is buying the him dying on the spaceship tease (really I doubt anyone is). It could also be Thor who saves him, but without Hemidall's sight, he's not gonna know where to look for Bifrosting Stark to safety, and Rocket doesn't have a ship to go looking in person.

[russdm]

Winter Soldier: "Hi, Tony, its SHIELD again. Those three ARC reactor powered helicarriers you helped us build? Yeah, turns out we've been harboring the world's oldest terrorist organization and had to crash them into the river..."



The part in Bold always pissed me off. Knowing Hydra's history, why allow any of its members you spare be able to spread their ideals to anyone? Why aren't those idiots stuck in an isolated location where the only visitors are die-hard "I hate hydra" types? Or people who won't be any of their crap?

I get they tried to copy the Project Paper Clip deal, but those people like Werner Von Braun were in some cases just stuck for days/months/years, while the government decided whether or not to actually use them. Yet, in most material depicting Shield's actions, it seems that they are more quick to let their Hydra types to get back in business.

Was OSS and Shield run by idiots? If the Hydra guys turned out to be really bad in comparison to their Nazi pals, then they should have been dropped/eliminated so there would be no trouble.

I guess Shield is just run on Stupid Power or something. They let a defeated terrorist group to essentially seize control.

Maybe Hydra survived by hiding out with the Commies that snuck into the US Government. Makes sense.

[Daimbert]

The part in Bold always pissed me off. Knowing Hydra's history, why allow any of its members you spare be able to spread their ideals to anyone? Why aren't those idiots stuck in an isolated location where the only visitors are die-hard "I hate hydra" types? Or people who won't be any of their crap?

Most of this is coming from Agents of SHIELD and speculation, but I don't think it's as bad as you make it out here.

First, this infiltration happened over at least 50 years, from the end of the war to today. And while they had control they still didn't have complete control, as a lot of leaders were not Hydra: Fury, Coulson, Hill, Hand and so on. The benefit they had was Pierce and Garrett who were high enough to put people in high places and influence many decisions.

Second, the only scientists that they really recruited were people like Zola, and again that was over a fair period of time. And other than his managing to build the AI that maintained him, he wasn't as far as I know that direct of a recruiter for Hydra.

Third, it wasn't like Hydra was wiped out and then the remnants decided to take over SHIELD instead. There was always an external core of Hydra that had infiltrating SHIELD as its long-term goal. That meant that they could infiltrate people at low levels that no one knew were Hydra and have Hydra people outside of SHIELD recruit SHIELD people. Again, they took the long view and did this over decades, and in fact might have stayed hidden and completely infiltrated it if it wasn't for the opportunity with the Insight project with Pierce in control. The fact that they didn't have complete control hurt them and ultimately led to their failure.

About the only odd thing about it is not really being able to give good reasons for those who converted to join Hydra, although they did at least try.

[Legato Endless]

Do you want to rule the world? Doesn't everyone? Do you want men free from freedom? Join Hydra today!

There's certainly some improbable assertions to the takeover, such as that in fifty years of worming their way up no major leaks occurred to tip people off. They either silenced or successfuly recruited every prospect, no zealot ever had a change of heart and took advantage of it, no meddling outsiders exposing anything. It's the typical slide of hand where off screen fictional evil societies have flawless operational security but once they're on screen they become quite fallible. Of course the real world is populated by people, not background drones enabling the plot.

Still, Winter Soldier is a pulp global conspiracy movie, so that's part and parcel to the genre. It'd be more shocking to see a realistic cabal. The MCU is not designed to be grounded.

[Keltest]

Do you want to rule the world? Doesn't everyone? Do you want men free from freedom? Join Hydra today!

There's certainly some improbable assertions to the takeover, such as that in fifty years of worming their way up no major leaks occurred to tip people off. They either silenced or successfuly recruited every prospect, no zealot ever had a change of heart and took advantage of it, no meddling outsiders exposing anything. It's the typical slide of hand where off screen fictional evil societies have flawless operational security but once they're on screen they become quite fallible. Of course the real world is populated by people, not background drones enabling the plot.

Still, Winter Soldier is a pulp global conspiracy movie, so that's part and parcel to the genre. It'd be more shocking to see a realistic cabal. The MCU is not designed to be grounded.

As I recall, they were actually found out. Fury had Black Widow on an information gathering mission to identify the traitors, and that's what prompted them to move overtly in the first place.

[Tvtyrant]

Also Zola is basically magic, he might have just predicted who would become suspicious and added them to his "accident" list. Why else murder the Starks instead of harvesting their tech?

[Florian]

Maybe Hydra survived by hiding out with the Commies that snuck into the US Government. Makes sense.

Hahaha. No.

The thing with ideologies like the one exhibited by Hydra, is that more normal people can´t really plumb the depth of the underlying madness and the ones who do understand it are more inclined to switch sides and becomes followers of Hydra, too.

[Daimbert]

Do you want to rule the world? Doesn't everyone? Do you want men free from freedom? Join Hydra today!

It works for the ones recruited into Hydra or some of the more mercenary types, but the reasons why the loyal SHIELD agents turned to pull off the big betrayal arcs aren't as strong. Essentially, why Pierce in Winter Soldier or Garrett in Agents turned. They give reasons, but I found them a little shaky.


There's certainly some improbable assertions to the takeover, such as that in fifty years of worming their way up no major leaks occurred to tip people off. They either silenced or successfuly recruited every prospect, no zealot ever had a change of heart and took advantage of it, no meddling outsiders exposing anything. It's the typical slide of hand where off screen fictional evil societies have flawless operational security but once they're on screen they become quite fallible. Of course the real world is populated by people, not background drones enabling the plot.

As someone else pointed out, they were tipped off about it, but I think part of the underlying story is that no one believed that Hydra still existed or was any kind of threat, and so one tip from one person would be dismissed as paranoia. When Hydra wasn't in as high positions, then the idea of them infiltrating would seem incredible, and when they WERE in high positions they could easily have it "investigated" and dismissed as nonsense and/or explained as something else.

[Dr.Samurai]

So it makes sense that he keeps the technology increasingly more closely to his vest with each movie. If Stark installed free cell phone charging stations all across NYC, someone like AIM or HYDRA would be using it to be driving up insurance costs within a week.
He wouldn't do that though. He'd create some type of power plant that uses arc reactor technology and can power an entire state or nation or something. And he'd defend these power plants with energy weapons also powered by arc reactors, and dedicated armies of Iron Man drones that he creates and controls very easily, and maybe a fleet of heli-carriers as well. And after Black Panther and Wakanda's new agenda, he'd throw forcefields into the mix, etc. etc.

The point is... Pym particles aren't the only thing that "don't make sense" in the MCU.

[Keltest]

He wouldn't do that though. He'd create some type of power plant that uses arc reactor technology and can power an entire state or nation or something. And he'd defend these power plants with energy weapons also powered by arc reactors, and dedicated armies of Iron Man drones that he creates and controls very easily, and maybe a fleet of heli-carriers as well. And after Black Panther and Wakanda's new agenda, he'd throw forcefields into the mix, etc. etc.

The point is... Pym particles aren't the only thing that "don't make sense" in the MCU.

Is he not doing that? During avengers 1 he specifically says he's got a big Arc reactor powering Stark Tower, and that its a prototype model. Presumably he hasn't just abandoned that idea, even if it isn't ready to supplant fossil fuels yet.

[Tvtyrant]

It works for the ones recruited into Hydra or some of the more mercenary types, but the reasons why the loyal SHIELD agents turned to pull off the big betrayal arcs aren't as strong. Essentially, why Pierce in Winter Soldier or Garrett in Agents turned. They give reasons, but I found them a little shaky.



As someone else pointed out, they were tipped off about it, but I think part of the underlying story is that no one believed that Hydra still existed or was any kind of threat, and so one tip from one person would be dismissed as paranoia. When Hydra wasn't in as high positions, then the idea of them infiltrating would seem incredible, and when they WERE in high positions they could easily have it "investigated" and dismissed as nonsense and/or explained as something else.
Pierce probably saw a country that defeated "The Enemy" as a kid, then he lived in a world on the edge of atomic war and then followed it up with chaos and disorder. Hyper-totalitarianism probably appealed to his sense of order.

"What if it is the rules that are keeping us from succeeding?" is a common thought in history (see the entire superhero genre.)

[Legato Endless]

As I recall, they were actually found out. Fury had Black Widow on an information gathering mission to identify the traitors, and that's what prompted them to move overtly in the first place.

Indeed. That's why the film starts when it does, either right before or after someone figures out something isn't right. That's not the issue though, the plot magic is that it's half a century between infiltration and the start of the movie.


As someone else pointed out, they were tipped off about it, but I think part of the underlying story is that no one believed that Hydra still existed or was any kind of threat, and so one tip from one person would be dismissed as paranoia. When Hydra wasn't in as high positions, then the idea of them infiltrating would seem incredible, and when they WERE in high positions they could easily have it "investigated" and dismissed as nonsense and/or explained as something else.

Hydra being considered dead is rather irrelevant. The problem isn't Hydra being dead, it's nothing ever getting leaked and the investigation uncovering a conspiracy which at the end reveals itself to be Hydra. The plot conceit is that thousands of people over half a century infiltrated shield, fooled every government even during Cold War paranoia, and caused global chaos through multiple incidents, and always managed to maintain the masquerade until Winter Soldier. Breaking that facade doesn't require knowing it's Hydra. It just requires you to find out something shady is happening.

During most of the period the gestation of Project Insight takes place, half a theory and vague evidence wouldn't be dismissed as paranoia. It'd be aggressively investigated by private and public interests. Hydra's takeover requires them to have infiltrated everywhere meaningful to prevent anyone from finding out, and all of those infiltrators holding the company line and plugging every leak. Logistically, this is impossible. It's why no real world intrigue of settled historicity resembles this in the least.

Again, this isn't a narrative flaw, but it's absolutely not something grounded and organic outside of the pulp novel this is happening in.


Also Zola is basically magic, he might have just predicted who would become suspicious and added them to his "accident" list. Why else murder the Starks instead of harvesting their tech?

Because a lot of decisions makers at some point prioritize short term gains over long.

Zola can't actually future cast. That's why he fails to kill Steve and Natasha at the bunker. He also wasn't an AI for part of the plan, and after becoming one he lived in Shield's servers greasing everything along. Project Insight can't predict a person's specific decisions out, just if they'll resist Hydra's rule, and it didn't become viable until the rise of personal information proliferated. Even if had before that, you'd still have the unpredictable vector of people who would give into Hydra as a global ruler, but have no motive to do so in the current climate as the plan gestates.


Pierce probably saw a country that defeated "The Enemy" as a kid, then he lived in a world on the edge of atomic war and then followed it up with chaos and disorder. Hyper-totalitarianism probably appealed to his sense of order.

"What if it is the rules that are keeping us from succeeding?" is a common thought in history (see the entire superhero genre.)

Exactly. It's a very old song.

[Keltest]

I mean, the whole point is that SHIELD is so compartmentalized and secretive that the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.

[Tvtyrant]

In Agents of Shield they show how recruitment goes for Hydra, it makes perfect sense in setting. Shield recruits people using a system of mentors, like Jedi, and then they are brought into the fold once properly vetted.

All they need to do is predict under direct observation whether someone will be willing to become hydra, then preach it to them during mentorship and once properly indoctrinated bring them into Shield. If the recruit doesn't workout they can simply shoot them/brain wipe them and move on.

Shield is actually a lot like Lemony Snicketts' VFD, with the internals so ludicrously secretive no one actually knows who they can trust.

Edit: Interestingly the Avengers work the same way. No formal structure, loyalty is deeply personal and trust based on trusting vouchers. Antman is brought in by Falcon, and Cap trusts him because he trusts Falcon. The others defend Bucky because Cap does, Spiderman is mentored by Tony, etc.

[Keltest]

Something else to consider is that hydra and SHIELD did not have significantly different goals. Remember that it was SHIELD that had the fleet of helicarriers with death weapons, not hydra working in secret or anything.

[Florian]

I mean, the whole point is that SHIELD is so compartmentalized and secretive that the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.

Ok, RL thing: I had the misfortune to work for a Service as an external contractor. I also had the misfortune to have had two cases when agents of other Agencies came to our office and wanted to talk about their offers. The scarier case was actually an allied Service.

The whole setup looks a bit weird and stupid, until the point someone casually puts a gun on a desk and politely asks for service. You can extrapolate the rest.

[Daimbert]

Hydra being considered dead is rather irrelevant. The problem isn't Hydra being dead, it's nothing ever getting leaked and the investigation uncovering a conspiracy which at the end reveals itself to be Hydra.

The point was that at the start of the conspiracy when it didn't have highly placed collaborators and didn't have its cell structure in place, anyone hinting that there was a major infiltration from an outside organization would be dismissed because there was no organization that they could find that would or could do that, and it being Hydra would be dismissed because the organization was believed to be dead. So any slip-ups in recruitment would be easily explained away as the work of one or a small number of corrupt individuals. By the time enough of those added up to something, they had enough highly placed agents to take over the investigations themselves and report that there was nothing to it. It could have fallen apart if the right people started poking around, but for the most part those right people were always misled by people that they had reason to completely trust (Fury with Pierce, Coulson with Garrett, etc).


The plot conceit is that thousands of people over half a century infiltrated shield, fooled every government even during Cold War paranoia, and caused global chaos through multiple incidents, and always managed to maintain the masquerade until Winter Soldier. Breaking that facade doesn't require knowing it's Hydra. It just requires you to find out something shady is happening.

The thing is that Hydra didn't fool any of the governments or anything at all. They only fooled those in charge. Those in charge were always above reproach, except for perhaps being a bit too secretive. Who were the most visible faces of SHIELD and those most trusted and in charge? Stark, Agent Carter, Fury, Hill and Coulson, none of which turned. Again from Agents, most of the highest placed and most visible SHIELD personnel WEREN'T Hydra: most of the top agents that worked with Coulson, Hand, Gonzales, Mockingbird, and so on. Pierce was the biggest exception to this, but having one person manage to play the game isn't that surprising.

So the question isn't how they fooled the world, but how they fooled those who were the face of SHIELD TO the world. And that was usually based on prior relationships or them acting like good SHIELD agents 99% of the time.


During most of the period the gestation of Project Insight takes place, half a theory and vague evidence wouldn't be dismissed as paranoia. It'd be aggressively investigated by private and public interests.

Pierce was also in charge of that, and they had the higher level agents they needed. It would be investigated by SHIELD agents that were compromised and dismissed as unfounded. Evidence could be planted showing that those who were ratting them out were the ones compromised and trying to gum up the works, which is precisely the logic that Pierce let the World Council use when they overturned Fury's request to delay Project Insight.

On top if that, they didn't really need to do anything that suspicious. Fury was on board with Project Insight, so they could let him provide the nice reasons for doing it and justifying the secrecy and oddities. Any investigations into him would come up clean, so there was no risk. So all Pierce needed to do was prod Fury into liking the idea, and then set it up so that it ran with his preferred algorithm rather than Fury's. And once that all went active, then nothing would be able to stop them.

Which to me justifies them moving quickly on this opportunity even though their infiltration wasn't complete yet, and wasn't even that secure: once they co-opted Project Insight they'd be unable to hide, but wouldn't NEED to hide anymore either. It was too good an opportunity to pass up.


Hydra's takeover requires them to have infiltrated everywhere meaningful to prevent anyone from finding out, and all of those infiltrators holding the company line and plugging every leak. Logistically, this is impossible. It's why no real world intrigue of settled historicity resembles this in the least.

But they didn't takeover completely, hence the SHIELD Civil War. And if you look at their influence, their takeover was more encouraging SHIELD to do things that would benefit SHIELD on paper but that in actuality ended up benefiting Hydra, but doing so quietly, like replacing the algorithm or keeping a list of powered individuals or storing and exploring alien tech that could be weaponized. They didn't need to have that much influence to compromise SHIELD enough to make things bad when they were revealed.

[Foeofthelance]

He wouldn't do that though. He'd create some type of power plant that uses arc reactor technology and can power an entire state or nation or something. And he'd defend these power plants with energy weapons also powered by arc reactors, and dedicated armies of Iron Man drones that he creates and controls very easily, and maybe a fleet of heli-carriers as well. And after Black Panther and Wakanda's new agenda, he'd throw forcefields into the mix, etc. etc.



At which point the Board of Directors would stage some form of corporate coup, citing all the expenses being sunk into a "mere" power plant, getting away with it because Tony would have been so focused on protecting the power plant from external threats that he'd ignore the inside ones. And once the company was no longer under his control, including that brand new power plant, army of drones, and force field equipped helicarriers, we'd find out the person behind the coup is the latest president of the "Let's Kill Tony" fan club. There'd be firefights and explosions, the plant would go critical, and the only way to stop it would be to contain the explosion by sacrificing the helicarriers and burning out their force fields. The resulting explosion would still have enough power to vaporize the remaining drones. The entire plot would unravel in 3-5 days, at which point Tony would be back in control of Stark Industries, sitting in the smoking ruins contemplating his lesser failure.

The MCU may not necessarily always obey the known laws of physics, but it does answer to a higher power: the Known Laws of the Narrative. Chief among those laws is The more grand and complicated Tony's Plan for Fixing the World becomes, the more likely it is to explode in his face and do several billion dollars in property damage.

[Keltest]

At which point the Board of Directors would stage some form of corporate coup, citing all the expenses being sunk into a "mere" power plant, getting away with it because Tony would have been so focused on protecting the power plant from external threats that he'd ignore the inside ones. And once the company was no longer under his control, including that brand new power plant, army of drones, and force field equipped helicarriers, we'd find out the person behind the coup is the latest president of the "Let's Kill Tony" fan club. There'd be firefights and explosions, the plant would go critical, and the only way to stop it would be to contain the explosion by sacrificing the helicarriers and burning out their force fields. The resulting explosion would still have enough power to vaporize the remaining drones. The entire plot would unravel in 3-5 days, at which point Tony would be back in control of Stark Industries, sitting in the smoking ruins contemplating his lesser failure.

The MCU may not necessarily always obey the known laws of physics, but it does answer to a higher power: the Known Laws of the Narrative. Chief among those laws is The more grand and complicated Tony's Plan for Fixing the World becomes, the more likely it is to explode in his face and do several billion dollars in property damage.

Technically the Arc reactors are Tony's private property. If he wants to set up another company to run and operate power planets, that's his own business. Literally.

[Foeofthelance]

Technically the Arc reactors are Tony's private property. If he wants to set up another company to run and operate power planets, that's his own business. Literally.

Ah, but there's a difference between the Arc reactors powering his suits or private property such as Stark Tower and an Arc reactor designed to be plugged into a public power grid. There'd be oversight committees, politicians, local advocates, protesters, etc., to have to deal with. And that's before you start getting into things like crewing helicarriers and deploying armies of drones. Even if he set up a new company and the BoD consisted solely of him, Pepper, and Happy, we'd find that Happy had been brainwashed by {insert villain} to approve all the paperwork necessary to allow {villain's} minions to get into the positions necessary to carry out the scheme. The bigger the plan, the more exposed it is to corrupting influences.

[Keltest]

Ah, but there's a difference between the Arc reactors powering his suits or private property such as Stark Tower and an Arc reactor designed to be plugged into a public power grid. There'd be oversight committees, politicians, local advocates, protesters, etc., to have to deal with. And that's before you start getting into things like crewing helicarriers and deploying armies of drones. Even if he set up a new company and the BoD consisted solely of him, Pepper, and Happy, we'd find that Happy had been brainwashed by {insert villain} to approve all the paperwork necessary to allow {villain's} minions to get into the positions necessary to carry out the scheme. The bigger the plan, the more exposed it is to corrupting influences.

Once you hit the point where the crux of your argument explicitly requires contrived coincidence, I think you've lost the argument. We literally see tony developing this tech, in this manner, on screen. Its his opening scene in The Avengers. He is very definitely working on it, even if it isn't the most visible aspect of what he's doing.

[Tvtyrant]

Once you hit the point where the crux of your argument explicitly requires contrived coincidence, I think you've lost the argument. We literally see tony developing this tech, in this manner, on screen. Its his opening scene in The Avengers. He is very definitely working on it, even if it isn't the most visible aspect of what he's doing.

We also don't see any new applications after Hydra takes over Stark designed helicarriers, so I imagine at this point it is a matter of being bitten so often he has become resigned to very slow implementation. Otherwise every city and car would be powered by them by now.

[Foeofthelance]

Once you hit the point where the crux of your argument explicitly requires contrived coincidence, I think you've lost the argument. We literally see tony developing this tech, in this manner, on screen. Its his opening scene in The Avengers. He is very definitely working on it, even if it isn't the most visible aspect of what he's doing.

We see Tony working on an arc reactor designed to power Stark Tower, which Tony owns. He makes a mention to Pepper that one day it could be used to power the city. By the end of the movie the reactor has been hijacked by Loki to power the Tesseract and allowing the Chitauri to invade, leaving most of the city around Stark Tower a blasted, shattered wreck. The good news is that it was only a few city blocks. The bad news is that damage would, by estimate, come out to about $160,000,000,000 to repair. And that's from Stark just trying to save money on his own power bill!

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/avengers-damage-manhattan-would-cost-160-billion-322486

[Dr.Samurai]

Is he not doing that? During avengers 1 he specifically says he's got a big Arc reactor powering Stark Tower, and that its a prototype model. Presumably he hasn't just abandoned that idea, even if it isn't ready to supplant fossil fuels yet.
I don't know if he's doing that. It's been six years since Avengers. Tony started off making a suit of armor powered by an arc reactor, and has since made life (by way of AI) and mastered nanotechnology. So... maybe he's still working on how to bring his power source to everyone, but he's made ridiculous leaps and bounds since the first Iron Man, so it seems unlikely that this has stymied him all these years.

Tony has ridiculous tech. He can draw blood from Thanos, who couldn't be harmed by the Hulk, who in turn is invulnerable to virtually every weapon known to man. Tony should be revolutionizing like... everything at this point. It's laughable that it took Rhodes two years to recover from his paralysis given the technology that Stark (and now Wakanda) has access to.

I don't see the difference in the narrative law that says "we will introduce all of this technology and magic, but it will only ever be meaningful in this way because story" and "Pym particles are said to work this way but they will work however it's coolest because story".