This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"It should simply be plunge and move on, plunge and move on..."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 28 July 2014












April 05 2014

(SPOILER) Explaining Captain America: The Winter Soldier's post-credits scenes. Vulture breaks down the two post credit sequences in Captain America. They explain that Joss Whedon directed the first post credit sequence and what it means for The Avengers: Age of Ultron.

The piece also speculates about who could succeed Chris Evans in the role of Captain America.

I think these were the two most accessible scenes they've done lately. Hard time seeing how the second credit piece needs deciphering though, as it's a nice character beat (much like Thor and Jane in TDW), not a tease. Either way, Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson look terrific.
A nice character beat, but still possible foreshadowing. Once he figures out his history with Cap, will he then turn on H.Y.D.R.A.?
The word "mutant" is standard English, so the sentence sayign Fox owns the word and that it's a "Marvel word" is way lacking in focus.
DaddyCatALSO/ Feige and others have mentioned the word mutant cannot be used in the Marvel Studios productions as it belongs to FOX. I guess its not the word per se as the use of the word related to the marvel universe, the idea that some superheroes in that particular universe are such because they are mutantd, but i dont know. Search me. Im the farthest thing to a lawyer yhou can think of. All i know is that Marvel Studios cant use hat word, according to the studio itself. For whatever reason.

[ edited by Darkness on 2014-04-05 21:17 ]
Yeah, as far as the issues concerning the use of the word 'mutant' go, it's basically its use in relation to giving superhuman ability within the Marvel Universe. As such, describing a character born with the X-gene.

If you want a little more info regarding what makes a character a mutant, as opposed to a mutate, you can read all about it here.
This is almost tangential, but since one of the scenes is a lead-in to Age of Ultron maybe I can ask here.

It would seem that the semi-autonomous suits in Iron Man 3 are a thread that leads to Ultron, and I'd tend to assume that Zola's ability to dump a real brain to a computer in Winter Soldier might be a thread that leads to Ultron, and these things make me assume there must have been something in Thor 2 that's a thread leading to Ultron, but for the life of me I can't think of what it could be.

Any ideas?
Off the top of my head, b!X, I honestly couldn't think of one either. There's a fair amount in Thor 2 that I'd imagine is meant to lead towards Guardians of the Galaxy and later Avengers 3, but not so much anything relating to Ultron.

Having said that, you have just given me a good excuse for a Thor 2 rewatch, so if I see anything new I'll let you know.
I think Thor 2 contributes to the Thanos storyline with the focus on the ether and concluding Loki's arc.
Concluding? He's just gotten into position to do some real damage!
I'm just stuck on the idea that there's got to be something in all three movies, what with Ultron's " origin comes more directly from the Avengers we already know about", according to Joss.
I'm guessing since Sif says she was sent "by Odin" that nobody (well, except Loki) is actually aware of what's happening with Asgard's current leadership.
The arc I meant was the arc with Loki's place amongst his family.
I don't think Joss's statement indicates that they need a connection to Ultron in all three movies. Just having it be Tony's fault fits with what Joss said.

Also, the first Thor movie led directly to the first Avengers movie. It's someone else's turn now.
Having watched Cap 2 and enjoyed its intensity and socio-political commentary... I found the mid-credit teaser's "age of miracles" to be so very weak. Weak as a concept in and of itself (why are these two prisoners scarier than Hydra infiltrating SHIELD?) and weak on Marvel's part to back away from the phrase we ALL know belongs there instead: "the age of mutants".

If both sides can have a character called Quicksilver in their next film, both studios can certainly use the word "mutant". Marvel Studios should just use the word "mutant" and let Fox sue them. Who cares? Battle it out in court. Both sides can afford it.

When the dust settles, perhaps big-screen Wolverine can hang out with the Avengers and RDJ's Tony Stark can compare brain sizes with Reed Richards.
Except contracts were written up that I'm certain were very clear on what parts of the Marvel mythology Fox would have final say over, meaning that if Marvel were to pull that little trick, they really wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Believe me, after seeing the mess that Fox has made of both the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises (something that by all accounts they are going to continue to do...) there is no one that would like to see both properties back under the Marvel movie banner more than me. At least no one not directly employed by Marvel anyway. Isn't going to happen though. At least not until Disney make one hell of a Galactus sized offer to Fox.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home