Avengers 2 (Spoilers)

[The Romulan Republic]

True.

Rhodes actually wouldn't be a bad choice for Avengers commander, especially if something took Cap. and Widow out of action.

[Ted C]

I thought Cap got a field promotion in "The First Avenger" after rescuing the prisoners from the Hydra base.

In any case, the Avengers are not part of the US military chain of command, so Rhodes' rank doesn't really matter there.

[Lost Soal]

I thought Cap got a field promotion in "The First Avenger" after rescuing the prisoners from the Hydra base.

In any case, the Avengers are not part of the US military chain of command, so Rhodes' rank doesn't really matter there.

No, he was always a Captain after the initial experiment, he was just taken seriously by the General after the rescue and treated as an actual Captain

[Eternal_Freedom]

Isn't there a regulation that says that the most senior office int he relevant branch has command? It is common sense, I mean, if you just happened to have a Naval Captain working with an Infantry company, would you expect them to assume command, or would you expect them to defer to the company commander who, while a lower rank, has more direct experience and training?

[Lord Revan]

Isn't there a regulation that says that the most senior office int he relevant branch has command? It is common sense, I mean, if you just happened to have a Naval Captain working with an Infantry company, would you expect them to assume command, or would you expect them to defer to the company commander who, while a lower rank, has more direct experience and training?

Well it depends on what capacity said Naval Captain was working with the Army forces and the tactical/strategic situation.

Dunno how it works in other countries but in the Finnish Defense Force Marine Forces(aka Navy and costal forces), Air Force and Army have serate chains of command so an army officer couldn't have given me a direct order (I was a costal forces Private). In joint operations it is generally as you say, but there's exceptions (which vary between countries and situations so greatly that there's no reason realistic way to list them all).

As for Captain Steven Rodgers of United States Army, he was given a PR promotion (unlike his main universe counterpart who was a Private) to Army Captain so technically he could commanded an Army company (though not a marines one), though unless battlefield action he would probably been considered a guy the HQ sent to get "battlefield" experience to get up in the chain of command and not respected by the men (like the CO of Easy Company before Spears in Band of Brothers).

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'm fully aware that i likely varies from military to military. But such a concept at least exists, so I hardly find it surprising that Rogers is in charge while Colonel Rhodes follows him, as despite the different rans, Rogers is far more experienced at the required tasks (and, as noted, they aren't in the US military so their ranks are not relevant).

[Bedlam]

Actually how experienced is Cap and Rhodes?

The exact date might be mentioned in the films but America is already in the war when Cap is created so probably '42 at the earliest, by the time he actually fights in the war Allied forces are already in Europe, so the second half of '44 or later (unless they're in Italy). He then leads various commando raids against hydra until the end of the film at which point it seems like Germany is still in the war so presumably early '45 so it seems his combat experience is 9 months at the most, likely less than 6 months although it would seem to be certainly hard fighting.

Now Rhodes we know much less about, he has a higher rank and presumably worked his way up the officer track. His major role we see seems to be babysitting a VIP so it's not clear how much battlefield experience he has but probably some in Iraq or Afghanistan. He certainly has more time in service on Cap although possibly less combined time in the field.

[Eternal_Freedom]

More time in service, true, but from what we see in the films he's either babysitting a VIP, working in R&D (which explains dealing with Tony) and giving talks to cadets. That doesn't exactly scream "experienced combat pilot." Hell, even if he is more experienced in aerial combat, Cap has been part of the Avengers and SHIELD for longer, so I would imagine Rhodes would deer to him quite happily (since he doesn't seem to be a jerk in the films).

[Gaidin]

On the First Avenger wiki the raid to rescue Barnes is said to happen in 1943 in Italy. Make of that what you will for figuring Cap out.

[Vendetta]

If you want to get technical about it, Lt. Colonel James Rhodes would out rank Cap. Roger's command would be justified on seniority as an Avenger and the whole "living legend" thing rather than rank.

Ironically, given he's always portrayed as the "leader", just about every Marvel character with military experience would outrank Captain America with the exception of the Punisher who was also Captain when he left the service. Rhodes is a Lt. Colonel, Ben Grimm was a Major, Carol Danvers was a Colonel, etc.

[Gaidin]

Strangely nobody's bothered to ponder the question of if we need to add the 'retired' moniker to Rhode's name for joining the Avengers without interference from the American Government. I'm just saying.

[Bedlam]

On the First Avenger wiki the raid to rescue Barnes is said to happen in 1943 in Italy. Make of that what you will for figuring Cap out.

Well that potentially extends his experience to about 18 months given Italy wasn't invaded until September, so a fairly large different to my original idea.

[The Romulan Republic]

Strangely nobody's bothered to ponder the question of if we need to add the 'retired' moniker to Rhode's name for joining the Avengers without interference from the American Government. I'm just saying.

Something I'm not clear about is how closely the Avengers work with the government with SHIELD gone. In Age of Ultron they seem to work with NATO (I think it was mentioned that NATO got Struker) and their Hydra opponents identify them as American, but they don't seem to be getting orders from the government. So are they a US government-sanctioned team which is just given a lot of latitude (and how would Thor being the heir of a foreign government work with that?) or are they a vigilante group that no one tries to reign in because of how powerful they are and the fact that they saved the world twice?

[Gaidin]

Something I'm not clear about is how closely the Avengers work with the government with SHIELD gone. In Age of Ultron they seem to work with NATO (I think it was mentioned that NATO got Struker) and their Hydra opponents identify them as American, but they don't seem to be getting orders from the government. So are they a US government-sanctioned team which is just given a lot of latitude (and how would Thor being the heir of a foreign government work with that?) or are they a vigilante group that no one tries to reign in because of how powerful they are and the fact that they saved the world twice?

It's a strange question. And it can only get stranger. Especially with the questions Civil War will raise, and the fact that characters like this will likely raise it:



Lt. Col. meet General. Avengers, meet problem.

[Ted C]

Something I'm not clear about is how closely the Avengers work with the government with SHIELD gone.

SHIELD doesn't really qualify as "gone" anymore. Coulson appears to have rebuilt a working relationship with the US military, although I doubt they have any funding from the government. Likewise, the Avengers don't seem to be a secret, although they probably don't have any official sponsorship.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I guess Coulson's working with the government now. Forgot about that. But the same question applies to SHIELD as to the Avengers- are they simply a very well-equipped vigilant group/militia which is successful and powerful enough that they're tolerated, or are they officially working for the government?

[TOSDOC]

Yeah, I guess Coulson's working with the government now. Forgot about that. But the same question applies to SHIELD as to the Avengers- are they simply a very well-equipped vigilant group/militia which is successful and powerful enough that they're tolerated, or are they officially working for the government?

Somehow I think having Quinjets fly in and out of Avengers tower must have been pretty well sanctioned enough for cooperation with the US if not the UN level. But the Hulk will have changed that, and I have a feeling we're going to get a better feel for the government's attitude in Civil War. It'll probably look a lot like the opening meeting with Senator Kelly in X-Men.

[Ted C]

Yeah, I guess Coulson's working with the government now. Forgot about that. But the same question applies to SHIELD as to the Avengers- are they simply a very well-equipped vigilant group/militia which is successful and powerful enough that they're tolerated, or are they officially working for the government?

I would guess that they are currently pretty independent, and Civil War will make an issue of that.

[Rogue 9]

Just got back from seeing it. I don't know, the hour long fight scene at the end just kind of dragged after awhile. Yay, more robots. The film had its moments, but they really could have pared down the finale.

Also, blowing up a giant chunk of rock into a bunch of smaller chunks of rock won't actually make the resulting devastation on the ground below any better; you still have the same amount of rock making impact.

[The Romulan Republic]

Apparently Marvel and Whedon did not see eye to eye about a lot of stuff:

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/05/05/jo ... arvel-cuts

Avengers: Age of Ultron
Posted May 5 2015 — 10:20 AM EDT

With Avenges: Age of Ultron behind him, Joss Whedon has been surprisingly open about the filmmaking process for one of the biggest blockbusters of all time. But it was no easy process to bring Earth’s Mightiest Heroes back to the big screen, as Whedon revealed in a new interview.

Related
Joss Whedon quits Twitter
Loki's 'Ultron' absence? Joss Whedon explains
'Avengers: Age of Ultron': $187.7M debut
Spoilers from Avengers: Age of Ultron follow.

Whedon spoke on the Empire Film Podcast about what did—and didn’t—make it into the film. As much time as Age of Ultron spends on its action spectacle and tie-ins to the rest of the cinematic universe, Whedon also clearly wanted the film to explore the pathos of its heroes, which came in the form of dream sequences each character has at the hands of Scarlet Witch.

But those dreams, and the extended visit to Hawkeye’s farmhouse hideaway, were a struggle to keep in the film.

“The dreams, the farmhouse, these were not the things [the executives liked]… these are things I fought to keep,” Whedon said, later explaining that he only had a day to shoot each dream sequence.

Whedon described how others who had input on the film wanted Thor’s excursion into a cave in search of answers to take up a bigger chunk of the film. The scene didn’t test well with audiences, but the belief was that this sequence, which hints at the overarching plot concerning the Infinity Stones, was necessary.

“With the cave it really turned into, they pointed a gun at the farm’s head and said, ‘Give us the cave or we’ll take out the farm’—you know, in a civilized way,” said Whedon, who also liked a version of the cave scene. “And I respect these guys, they’re artists, but that’s when it got really, really unpleasant.”

The cave appears in the film, albeit in a much shorter version than originally planned, and Whedon at one point even contemplated taking it out. His editors convinced him something had to be shown of the plot, rather than have Thor just explain what happened. “I was so beaten down at that point I was like, ‘Sure, okay. What movie is this?’” Whedon explained.

Whedon also addressed the ending, in which a new Avengers lineup—Falcon, War Machine, Scarlet Witch, and The Vision led by Black Widow and Captain America—appears. And while the director wanted all of those characters there, he would have been happy with a few more.

“I said, ‘It would be great if we could just add a few more, if you guys could… have a Captain Marvel that you made a deal for,’” Whedon explained. “And they talked about it… and I was like, ‘And Spider-Man, would you do that too?’ So I would have put both of them in, but neither of the deals were made.”

Of course, a Captain Marvel movie has been announced, though no actress has been cast, and Spider-Man is set to appear in the MCU soon, perhaps as soon as the next Captain America sequel.

And in regard to that final scene, which cuts Captain America off after he says the word “Avengers…,” leaving a presumed “assemble” never to be said. It turns out, Chris Evans never said that word.

“I made sure we never shot him saying it, because I was positive some executive was going to go ‘Uh, you forgot to put in the last word,’” Whedon said.

Listen to the full interview from Empire below, in which he discusses more of the film’s production, as well as his decisions for plotlines concerning Quicksilver, Hulk, and Black Widow.

I wonder if this is why Whedon isn't directing Infinity War.

Personally, I think its probably for the best that they didn't include Spiderman and Captain Marvel. The film was already long and packed and those characters deserve a good introduction, not a rushed, squeezed in one.

But the Thor cave scene, while not terrible, wasn't really impressive, so I'm curious as to what Whedon's approach would have been like.

[Majin Gojira]

Rumor has it that there will be an extended cut of the film which has the cut stuff restored.

But this isn't the first time Whedon dealt with alterations. In the original Avengers, he wanted to have Wasp, but she was tied up with the Ant-Man deal (IE: The film had her out of action/dead/or something).

I actually would have liked to have had more heroes than just the ones we already established show up. It really says that there's more going on than just the films. And would save us from yet another Marvel Origin Movie.

[Elheru Aran]

Watched this Saturday.

Enjoyed it thoroughly.

Favorite moment: Probably the Hulk/Hulkbuster fight. Vision handing Thor his hammer is a pretty good second, though.

Primary issue this movie had is a lack of control over its pacing. It's definitely a little hard to keep track of what's going on during the fights. The Hulk/Hulkbuster fight stood out because it's just the two of them, rather than rapidly switching back and forth between who's fighting whom, so you can sit back and focus a little better.

I just had this big silly grin on my face watching Tony and Bruce pound the crap out of each other. That was awesome in its own way.

I wonder, was the bit at the end of that fight where Tony throws Hulk downward through the skyscraper and it collapses a deliberate reference to 9/11? Perhaps not a reference story-wise, but certainly thematically... Hulk looks out of the wreckage and sees the destruction he has caused on a parallel scale, and it's enough to give him pause for Tony to cold-clock him.

[MTC]

So I haven’t noticed this explicitly mentioned here yet, it surprised me a lot when I saw the film and I’d be even more surprised if nobody else noticed: Tony and Bruce were clearly talking as if Ultron was an AI while Jarvis wasn’t. But surely Jarvis is an AI? Why doesn’t Jarvis count as an AI according to them? It would make some sense for Ultron to be a much more sophisticated AI than Jarvis, but Jarvis not being an AI at all? That just doesn’t make sense to me. (These questions are all mostly rhetorical, I don’t really expect answers, it just seems interesting to note.)

[Bedlam]

So I haven’t noticed this explicitly mentioned here yet, it surprised me a lot when I saw the film and I’d be even more surprised if nobody else noticed: Tony and Bruce were clearly talking as if Ultron was an AI while Jarvis wasn’t. But surely Jarvis is an AI? Why doesn’t Jarvis count as an AI according to them? It would make some sense for Ultron to be a much more sophisticated AI than Jarvis, but Jarvis not being an AI at all? That just doesn’t make sense to me.

Well in real life is there a specific definition of what an AI is and when a particularly smart program becomes one?

It seems that Tony doesn't consider Jarvis and apparently his other programs (Friday, Josica, etc) as being ones just smart, but not 'intelligent' pieces of software.

[Gaidin]

Jarvis was literally an established business AI program with AI-human relationships that he'd built up for years as he worked for Tony. His thought capabilities may have even expanded beyond his initial business model as he handled Iron Man since, even as such from the first movie he was Tony's general AI even though it was said in AoU he gave many suggestions for the business if not handled many of the micro decisions.

Ultron, on the other hand, was something they were trying to engineer as, functionally, a first line defensive war AI but couldn't get to click together. He literally had no business being called an AI yet. Not until Jarvis hit the model that worked and became self-aware.