All posts by Flrancho

<p>I too like the alternate timelines thing; it lets us continue to see characters we love on the screen while still allowing an actor who is done to move on.</p><p>
</p><p>Not right away, but I don’t have a problem seeing someone else play Iron Man, Cap, etc and being recast a few years later. It’s worked fine in Bond films.</p><p>
</p>

<p>I completely agree with the thing with Quicksilver. Killed him after one movie that he was only in as a side character and never mentioned him again and he was supposed to have meant the world to SW. He’s my favorite from the comics and I’m still pretty bitter/sore that they just gave him the shaft like that; and against the popular opinion, I never liked the one from the X-Men /Fox because he’s not like the one from the comics.</p><p>
</p><p>Black Widow kind of has the same vibe .... no one cared that much except for Hulk and Hawkeye and even that was pretty brief. At least she’s getting her own movie and had several fairly minor roles in other movies, so not quite as bad as the Quicksilver issue.</p><p>
</p><p>I haven’t and don’t foresee me ever having issues with them brining anyone back from the dead though. These movies are based on comic books, and in comics unless your name is Uncle Ben, you’re never really dead; not forever anyway.</p><p>
</p>

<p>I have to agree teen titans, I also think alternate timelines were created. First, as you said what the Ancient One said.... it sounds like the stones have to be put back the very millisecond they were taken away or else things get messed up. Going along with this, we didn’t get to see Cap put the stones back. I know it makes the movie that much longer, but the fact that it wasn’t shown makes me suspicious. While I think Cap was responsible enough to take them back, I’m doubtful he put them back at the exact moment they were taken, especially since he was only there for the one in New York.</p><p>
</p><p>I’d be willing to bet that an alternate timeline was created somewhere and will not be revealed for a while and this alternate timeline is how we end up getting the Fantastic Four and mutants in the MCU.</p><p>
</p>

<p>I think the whole time travel thing either wasn’t set up that well or was a deliberate way to bring in alternate timelines. Let’s face it, when they mentioned time vortexes in Ant Man & the Wasp it wasn’t an accident, I don’t think mentioning alternate timelines and timelines getting messed up was an accident either, and it was already foreshadowed in Dr Strange. Some timeline diverged or got changed somewhere.</p><p>
</p><p>In all, I’m not sure this movie provided closure so much as it fueled more questions. Why didn’t they go back and save Quicksilver? And save Vision? Or at least go back and get prior versions of both of them like they did Gamora; at minimum they both would have remembered Wanda. Wouldn’t old Cap being in the same timeline drastically change their timeline - he’s probably not going to be fighting in New York, Sokovia, Wakanda, etc as an old man like that, and wasn’t SHIELD and all that set up because of looking for Captain America? How does Dr Strange and “the Calvary” jump through time without time travel devices or the time stone?</p><p>
</p>

<p>@justagirlfrommexico</p><p>
</p><p>I think it’s a possibility Black Widow could come back in time. Star Lord was looking for Gamora at the end of the movie (it’s debatable if he’s looking for the original one or the past one). If he can search for the original one, or they can bring back a past version, they should be able to bring anyone back if they wanted.</p><p>
</p>

<p>Ok, so we didn’t see Cap return any of the stones; that wasn’t shown in the movie. What if he did return them, but didn’t return them at the exact same time they were taken? For example, what if he put the stone back three minutes later than what he should have?</p><p>
</p>

<p>@greater good</p><p>
</p><p>Quicksilver doesn’t have a personality because he was in one movie as a minor side character and then given no character development and story arc. What do you expect? I don’t know why people are so quick to blame the actor or say the character wasn’t good. What happened in AoU was bad writing. Had he been in a few more movies and been given things to do instead of being used as a plot device to push SW along he probably would have come to have been better liked. I’m just miffed that he was never given that chance. Remember, nobody used to like Hawkeye either until they started delving into his character more. In the comics Quicksilver was a young adult who was quick tempered, arrogant, and abrasive- nothing like the fun-loving kid hyped up on caffeine and sugar that Fox portrayed.</p><p>
</p><p>And I forgot earlier, was anyone else put off by Professor Hulk? Something about the CG just looked wonky to me.</p><p>
</p>

<p>I wasn’t being funny, that was my honest opinion, though I know not the generalized popular one. I don’t like the Fox version at all. Nothing like the character in the comics. MCU one was more accurate.</p><p>
</p>

<p>I'm curious how things pan out going forward, especially with a few main characters falling by the wayside. I'm kind of concerned as the bits and pieces I've heard about the next phase aren't exciting to me in the least.</p><p>
</p><p>Secondly, I find it interesting how the snap actually wasn't reversed until five years afterwards. When asked when the Fox characters might be joining the MCU, Feigie said it wouldn't be for a while and that they'd already had the next five years mapped out before the Fox purchase, so a lot of people were estimating we wouldn't see anything for at least five years, ironically, the same real life timeframe when the snap would be being reversed. Coincidence?</p><p>
</p><p>Lastly, I was pretty disappointed there was no flashback scene with Quicksilver (though I would have preferred to see him resurrected). They brought Gamora back, showed the kid from Iron Man 3 that nobody recognized, but couldn't show Quicksilver running through a street or something? Granted, I'm biased because this is my favorite Marvel character (MCU version is better than Fox version), but nothing at all to even acknowledge the character existed in the franchise, really? I'm beginning to wonder if Marvel/Disney doesn't have it out for the guy that played him or something. If you go to the Marvel comics website, they actually show the movie versions of the characters on their character info pages (MCU characters only, they don't do it for the Fox characters) as the photo depiction of that character (ie Robert Downy Jr is depicted as Iron Man for the character photo). One interesting exception though; Quicksilver isn't depicted as MCU Quicksilver. What's up with that?</p>

<p>Probably my least favorite Avenger.... I don’t know; don’t like him the MCU and don’t like him in the comics either.</p><p>
</p>

<p>I was interest back when they were saying “Scarlet Witch tv show” and I was hoping it might be something about her or with her and her brother (Quicksilver). Then they said it would be Scarlet Witch and Vision and I pretty much lost interest as I don’t really like Vision or the SW/Vision relationship. And WandaVision for a name is nothing short of stupid.</p><p>
</p>

<p>Quicksilvers, died young and never really got to fulfill his potential.</p>

<p>Yes, and not just in time travel. It should be permanently. The character was interesting and had a lot of potential. It was a shame they killed him off before we ever really got to “know” him. And how they killed him off was pretty stupid.</p>

<p>Quicksilver and Hawkeye</p>

<p>I shouldn't say I told you so... but I've been saying for a long time that someone already guessed the name of the movie and that Marvel was just lying to us. They misdirect and lie all the time, I really don't know why anyone takes anything they say about upcoming movies with any grain of salt. And not that it will actually come to pass, but just food for thought - from the same people that brought you "The name of the movie isn't End Game", comes other statements like "Loki is dead", "Quicksilver is dead", "the Ancient One is returning and so is Crossbones", "Captain America will have future appearances", and "the movie is 3 hours long". I don't put any particular stock in any of Marvel's announcements given their track record, especially considering some of the statements I mentioned above I find someone fishy and have never entirely bought.</p><p>
</p><p>That said, the trailer was awesome. Can't wait.</p>

<p>I think a lot of the underratedness comes from Marvel/Disney not having full rights to the Hulk and in some matters their hands are a little tied. Not to mention in the comics the Hulk was only in the Avengers for like literally two comic books before he decided to leave, so they don't really have too much to draw on with him in terms of things from the Avengers line of comics.</p><p>
</p><p>I think Hawkeye and Quicksilver are/were pretty underutilized as well considering how big their roles were in the comics and comparing them to how little their roles have been in the movies. I don't know why they did this with Hawkeye, but Quicksilver has/had the same issues with rights to the character being shared between two studios - but then they kept Scarlet Witch around so maybe the rights argument isn't valid. Hulk isn't the only one though.</p>

<p>Just to make them a little different, I guess. And I've heard the stories about introducing Death as a character would be too complicated as well.</p><p>
</p><p>That said, there is a post credit scene in one of the movies (sorry, I don't remember which one; maybe Ultron?) - in which Thanos, watching the Avengers emerge victorious says to himself "to win against them, is to win against death" or something similar to that. So in a way, to Thanos, the Avengers symbolize a type of victory or triumph over death, if you want to look at it metaphoically instead of as a character.</p>

<p>I think they should just pull a James Bond and keep the Steve Rogers/Captain America character alive and just get a different (though similar looking) actor to play him.</p>

<p>First person that came to mind when I read your first sentence was Tony Stark/Iron Man. Big one I thought of was Ultron, as well. Then the whole mess with the Sokovia Accords and Civil War. From a certain point of view, you could argue that Tony Stark is the MCU's biggest villain, even if the wrong things he does may be done with the best intentions.</p>

<p>I both like and don't like this. I'd like a Hawkeye film and/or tv show (him and Quicksilver are my favorite characters), but I feel if the story line is him training another archer that either means he's going to get killed or they're just going to phase him out of the MCU after she takes over. It seems Marvel really likes killing the characters I like and/or giving them crappy roles where they don't get to shine like I think they have the potential to. I really wish they weren't going this "future is female route" with the MCU.... while I don't mind female superheros, I don't think they should be predominantly female - or male. Just make good characters with interesting stories. (and before I catch any flack for this opinion, I'm female myself).</p>