Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Reverend]

Given the sweeping nature of Civil War, I actually wonder if it would be best served as a season long arc for AoS? Not yet obviously, but down the road a ways. I just think a film would struggle to fit it all in and it'd come off very rushed.

I've thought that before, but they shouldn't do it unless Downey wants to appear in tv for several weeks

More like half a season as the recurring "big bad" if the Bus ends up siding with Cap, which let's be honest, of course they will. Yeah, it's unlikely, especially given that there's rumours he doesn't want to do another Iron Man stand-alone. On the other hand, the prospect of playing Stark as a villain might tempt him.

Evans might be a bigger problem though since he wants out of acting altogether and is actively pursuing a directing career. I suppose it's possible that they could offer him directing duties on some of the key episodes, but I wouldn't count on it.


On a different topic, I've been re-watching TFA & Avengers the last few nights and have picked up on some things I hadn't noticed before. Some may be intentional foreshadowing, others perhaps not.

First off in CA I noticed that in the montage between the prison break and the train they show that Bucky uses a sniper rifle to cover Rogers. It's interesting because in TWS, that still appears to be his signature weapon.

Secondly, in the deleted scene of Avengers when Steve is looking a Peggy's file, you can see on the dest is Bucky's file with "Missing in Action" plastered across it. The implication being that he was never officially declared dead.

As for Loki's sceptre; a lot of what it does suddenly makes sense if it really is the Mind Gem and not just a weapon (much more advanced than Hydra's) powered by the tesseract.

Some questions remain though: -
1) If it is the mind gem, how can a simple blow to the head be enough to shake off it's effects?
2) Shouldn't Thor have known it for what it was? Sif certainly knew an infinity stone when she saw one.
3) Even if he didn't clock it, it's still very powerful and dangerous, so why leave it behind after going to all that trouble of retrieving the tesseract?

Speaking of which, there's some interesting details in the manuscripts Schmitt looks at before taking the cube.
One depicts the cube being carried by what looks like Thor--winged helmet, hammer in his other hand, lighting bolts everywhere, riding a flying chariot. Was Thor the one that brought it to Earth in the first place? His visiting Midgard before was alluded to more than once.
Another has him holding the cube having just beheaded some beast (not a hydra sadly. only one head) with nine worlds opening above him.

 

[Kemaiku]

It's not the Mind Gem, it's Loki's Trickster Staff refitted with a bulb powered with Tesseract energy, which Thanos still had access to, implying he had the stone at some point. Loki stated he had been shown "the true power of the Tesseract" meaning there was quite a lot.

The only two we know of are it and the Aether. The "green" stone, refered to as 'the third' in an interview about Guardians of the Galaxy a couple of months ago will appear in it.

The Tesseract is also named as the Space Stone in it, Aether potentially 'power'? but the remaining 3 are unknown. If there is a real Manderin behind the Ten Rings, he may have one. I doubt it though, three of them on Earth is really pushing it.

Or even more unnerving, Thanos has the other 3 already, has been trying to get the green one for years, did not know where Bor and Odin hid the Space and Power stones until now, and phase 1 and 2 will be about the 3 we know of.

 

[Reverend]

It's not the Mind Gem, it's Loki's Trickster Staff refitted with a bulb powered with Tesseract energy, which Thanos still had access to, implying he had the stone at some point. Loki stated he had been shown "the true power of the Tesseract" meaning there was quite a lot.

Is that a fact you can back up with a credible source, or are you just supposing?

For one thing, the Other's dialogue suggests the sceptre is much more significant than you're making out. Plus if it were just another tesseract based weapon, then I can't see how it could be of great import to Hydra's research, they already have that technology, but without the cube to draw from, it's utility is limited.
Nor for that matter should it have any link to the Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver, which is the clear implication of the stinger from TWS.

IF on the other hand (and I stress, "if") it really is the mind stone then it's significance is clear and it's role in bringing Hydra's "age of miracles" makes sense. It would also account for how the sceptre was able to pierce the tesserct's shield. Selvig said that it couldn't protect against itself. Now if that meant that it's vulnerable to it's own energy, then in theory, any Hydra weapon would have worked. More to the point, Stark's beams should have worked since his chest reactor is reverse engineered from that same technology.
IF on the other hand it is the mind gem, then it makes more sense since it's another infinity stone and the tesseract can't guard against another like itself.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

There is a Kevin Feige quote recently that basically said they hadn't considered whether the scepter is an infinity gem or not, but that more would be explained in Avengers 2. They may ultimately decide to make it the mind gem simply because that'll account for another one without having to use a different plot for it (or simply throwing in the remainder all at once), but I'm not sure that's been decided yet.

 

[Kemaiku]

Is that a fact you can back up with a credible source

Play nice.

http://marvel-movies.wikia.com/wiki/Infinity_Stones

• Kevin Feige has stated that one of the Infinity Stones will be featured in Guardians of the Galaxy stating: "You may see another infinity stone in Guardians and certainly fans of the comics know what one can do with all of those stones if, god forbid, they get them and with Thanos showing up at the end of The Avengers, he plays a part in Guardians and leads us towards at least one potential future.

http://www.craveonline.com/film/int...view-kevin-feige-on-thor-and-marvels-future/2


As for the green remark, I can't find the subsequent interview link to that one. But from the sounds of it, the identities of the future stones isn't set anyway.


I thought the Avengers and Winter Soldier remarks about the staff were about setting it apart from the stones. It doesn't quite make sense for Thanos to let any of them out of his grasp like that, to someone like Loki. Now he's two stones down rather than one.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think he was asking for a link that said Loki's scepter was not an infinity stone.

Here's a good link, though:

Talking about The Winter Soldier post-credits scene:

“Well, it’s certainly pure speculation at this point. I’m not even sure if we even recognize Loki’s scepter [as an Infinity Stone], but that’s a big hint as to what will be causing them trouble in the next movie.”

 

[Reverend]

I thought the Avengers and Winter Soldier remarks about the staff were about setting it apart from the stones. It doesn't quite make sense for Thanos to let any of them out of his grasp like that, to someone like Loki. Now he's two stones down rather than one.

Yeah that occurred to me too. Like I said though, it's just speculation and there are a number of logical problems with it. One could put forth the idea that Thanos recognised that in order to get a second gem, he needed to put the one he had into play? I mean what good is having just one gem if he can't get the others?

Small side note: the Other mentions that Thanos wants the tesseract for the "greater worlds [than Earth] it will unlock." I wonder which worlds they might be? Can't be Asgard since both Loki and the Dark Elves proved you don't need the cube or the bifrost to get into Asgard if you know what you're doing. Presumably whatever worlds he's talking about contain at least one other stone.

As for the interview; on the one hand I suppose I could argue that they're never going to confirm a plot twist to reveal anything ahead of time, but that kind of logic can be used to justify almost *any* cockamamie theory, so let's call it inconclusive.

 

[bbjeg]

Are the Quicksilvers from X-Men: DofP and Avengers linked? It seems X-Men will explain his history and Avengers will simply not mention it but how can they both coexist without knowing about each other?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Are the Quicksilvers from X-Men: DofP and Avengers linked? It seems X-Men will explain his history and Avengers will simply not mention it but how can they both coexist without knowing about each other?

They don't coexist because they're in different universes. Essentially, they won't know of each other any more than they'd know about Batman.

It seems that they are changing the mutant origin of Quicksilver in Avengers, which seems a bit of a shame (I'd have preferred them to say they were born that way without needing to say "mutant").

 

[Reverend]

Are the Quicksilvers from X-Men: DofP and Avengers linked? It seems X-Men will explain his history and Avengers will simply not mention it but how can they both coexist without knowing about each other?

Different continuities. It's really not that difficult a concept.

Fox can use them, refer to them as mutants and mention their relationship to Erik, but not do anything with the Avengers (which actually makes up most of what they do in the comics. The Magneto thing isn't all that central to their characters surprisingly.) On the other hand Marvel can use them on the Avengers side of things, but can't use the word "mutants" or mention Magneto.

Though given that it looks like theire origins are closely linked with Hydra, they may be able to pull off a sly reference without breaking the rules. Like say they were cloned/engineered from a DNA sample taken from a certain (unnamed) ferrokinetic Jewish boy discovered in one of their concentration camps during the war. That'd be having the proverbial cake and eating it I think.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I doubt they'd go that far. I think they're having Baron Von Strucker as a surrogate father for them so they can be redeemed bad guys without ever hinting at a Magneto-like character.

Really, if they wanted to they could say they were born with powers, their father had abilities too, that he was a powerful man/cruel man/however else they want to describe him. Saying he could control metal might be pushing it, but they certainly could do a huge wink, wink, nudge, nudge if they wanted to. I just suspect they don't want to. I think they'd rather avoid the complexities necessary for things they'd never be able to fully explore.

 

[bbjeg]

Are the Quicksilvers from X-Men: DofP and Avengers linked? It seems X-Men will explain his history and Avengers will simply not mention it but how can they both coexist without knowing about each other?

Different continuities. It's really not that difficult a concept.

...

That's the thing. The people working on the first Avengers wanted to put Oscorp in the background and the only reason Sony didn't was because they didn't have the CGI ready. Now they're adding the same character to two franchises? Why if not to integrate stories? Couldn't they simply create a different fast character for either universe?

Scarlet Witch would definitely be a way to jump between realities or have them crash into one another.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

A couple things.

One, they may have wanted to, but they still haven't yet, so they haven't integrated the universes yet (as an aside, you're mixing up Sony and Marvel there, but that's ok). Also, neither one is Fox and the X-Men.

Second, they might integrate small things, but they haven't integrated big things. None of the events in The Amazing Spider-Man have been integrated into the Avengers and Peter Parker isn't dealing with the aftermath of the Chitauri invasion.

Third, they don't want to create a different fast character. There are fans of the Avengers universe who appreciate them for their role in that universe and fans of the X-Men universe who appreciate them for their role there. It would be a disservice to create a generic "fast" character for either.

Finally, it wouldn't actually make any sense to have them be the same character. One is more in the future than the other even though they're the same age.

 

[Captain Craig]

Are the Quicksilvers from X-Men: DofP and Avengers linked? It seems X-Men will explain his history and Avengers will simply not mention it but how can they both coexist without knowing about each other?

Are people really still struggling with this.
Let me clarify, internet message board, internet savvy people, really still struggling with this?

Two different studios. Two different approaches. Independent of each other.

 

[bbjeg]

^I'm fully aware it's multiple studios. I'm saying Universal asked Sony for an Oscorp model to put in Avengers and now with characters being sold for Universal and Fox to use, what's stopping them from using what characters they have left similarly. Characters that jump across franchises.

A couple things.

One, they may have wanted to, but they still haven't yet, so they haven't integrated the universes yet (as an aside, you're mixing up Sony and Marvel there, but that's ok). Also, neither one is Fox and the X-Men.

I was talking about Sony's past dealings with Universal followed by Marvel's (Disney's) current dealings with Fox and Universal.

... they don't want to create a different fast character. There are fans of the Avengers universe who appreciate them for their role in that universe and fans of the X-Men universe who appreciate them for their role there. It would be a disservice to create a generic "fast" character for either.

There are also fans who appreciate S.H.I.E.L.D. for their role in the X-Men comics. It does X-Men a disservice to disregard them just as much as creating a different Quicksilver.

Finally, it wouldn't actually make any sense to have them be the same character. One is more in the future than the other even though they're the same age.

House of M's storyline could merge them (or they were merged until Scarlet Witch separated them for their own good).

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Your basic premise, for starters, is that they want to work together. I think they're fine with Easter Eggs, but you're suggesting something entirely different. I've made my thoughts on the X-Men universe clear in many threads, so I'll leave that aside, but even they want to keep their franchises separate. Disney doesn't want SHIELD in a Fox movie. Fox doesn't want Hugh Jackman in the Avengers. They both think that's brand dilution, not synergy.

 

[PsychoPere]

Indeed. Avi Arad recently said in an IGN interview that the studios would have to be "out of ideas" to go down that road.

 

[Greg Cox]

Are the Quicksilvers from X-Men: DofP and Avengers linked? It seems X-Men will explain his history and Avengers will simply not mention it but how can they both coexist without knowing about each other?

The same way you have one Sherlock Holmes on SHERLOCK, another Sherlock Holmes on ELEMENTARY, and another Sherlock Holmes in the Robert Downey Jr. movies.

Different continuities, different production companies, different versions of the same character.

Remember we're not just talking about separate franchises here. We're talking about rival film companies who are competing against each other. They're not obliged to work together just because they each own a different piece of the Marvel pie.

 

[Reverend]

...Now they're adding the same character to two franchises? Why if not to integrate stories? Couldn't they simply create a different fast character for either universe?

Put simply; it's a pissing match between Fox and Marvel/Disney. Word on the net is that those two companies legitimately *hate* each other at the executive level.

As far as I understand it, it wasn't until word got out that those two characters would be in Avengers that they were written into DoFP, replacing Juggernaut's role in the script. Indeed, if you look at the latest trailer it's surprisingly obvious that this is the case.

As for the OsCorp/Spider-Man thing, keep in mind that Sony has a very different relationship with Marvel/Disney than Fox does. Sony *really* wants their movies to be tied into the larger MCU since Spider-Man is about the only thing keeping heads above water at the moment. Note though that so far, despite that brief flirtation there's been no further efforts on Marvel's part.

Perhaps Marvel figures that rather than back a dying horse, they just sit back and watch Sony fail, then come in witha big bag of cash and scoop up the Spidey rights when Sony Entertainment finds itself near bankruptcy.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

There is a legitimate story reason to not make them the same character - One Quicksilver is a young adult in the 70s, the other is one in the 2000s. However, if it is just a replacement of Juggernaut and they don't at all play up the father-son aspect, it would indeed be highly disappointing.