Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Real or replacement Rhodes matters not. Captain America has always been placed as the leader of the Avengers as adapted into the MCU. Any attempt to break that tradition just as Wilson becomes the official second Cap screams Disney/Marvel sharing the ideology of / bending to the ill-minded rants against Wilson being a Captain America or being the leader of that group. There's no other excuse anyone can cough up to justify the Wilson Cap following tradition where Captain America and the Avengers are concerned.
Fury stepped back as the creator of / director (of sorts) of the Avengers sometime around The Winter Soldier, even deferring to Cap as having an assumed authority during the Project Insight crisis. At this point in the MCU, with the new Cap's experience and working with the president, there's no better choice to lead the next phase of the Avengers. At best, Fury should be in an advisory position.
All of those sound fascinating, although unlike 1602, I don't know the significance of 1872.
But wasn't Fury the leader of the Avengers for awhile even with Captain America as part of the team? I always sort of seen the leader as basically someone who is connected to the America government in some way. That is why Rhodes to me makes sense, before abduction of course. Wilson now makes sense in that regard as well because if you take away Fury and Rhodes is dealing with issues he does seem to be the next logical replacement for team leader. I guess one could make a argument for Captain Marvel but she is never on Earth hardly.
I never really saw Fury as the leader of the Avengers, he was the guy who set up the Avengers Initative and the head of S.H.I.E.L.D., which the team was working with, but he never actually went out in the field with them. Cap was the one out in the field, and giving orders, so in my mind that makes him team leader.
We have a clip from the Mech Avengers episode
We have a clip from the Mech Avengers episode
Last edited:
What's funny though is the Avengers never really did follow any kind of chain of command. Everyone was basically a loose canon. Stark was going to do whatever he wanted and Thor of course spent most of his time off Earth. Banner was someone more afraid of his power as opposed to wanting to use The Hulk for good. Black Widow and Hawkeye were the only true soldiers , if you will of the group.
They sort of suggest an well organised version of the avengers that goes on missions between the films but we never see that...
But even then, until the Sokovia accords the governments ability to control them seemed almost impossible. The Sokovia accords are no longer in place so it does make you wonder about future Avengers teams. Now this is a good reason why they might want Wilson as Captain America as the leader. Yet even he went rogue sort of in the tv show. I do think we will sort of see him earn that trust in the movie though, making his rise to Avengers leader make even more sense.
There are so many unfounded assumptions there.
Oh, and disingenuous meaning https://g.co/kgs/AJHLwko
I thought they showed him giving everyone else instructions during the Battle of New York and the attack on Strucker's facility?
Captain America was almost always calling the shots, as seen in Avengers, Age of Ultron all the way up to Civil War and Endgame. He's the leader, and no one ever questioned it. Being Captain America--with his experience as a soldier / leader, and all of the (psychological) burdens he shouldered as the ultimate symbol of a tireless defender of liberty, made him a logical choice for the leadership position never offered to Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk or anyone else. The same experience and ideological nurturing/struggle applies to Wilson.
The Hugos are international. A group of people who didn't like science fiction moving out of its "traditional" style and audience tried to sabotage them. You continually come in to threads to dump on movies before they're even released and then post to gloat about their failures. Regardless of gender or race, I see it as two sides of the same coin.
So broadly you just don't like the content of my posts - that's life. Block me and move on and stop yapping like a little doggy.
Downey Jr is a great actor, that goes without saying, but if Doom is going to keep his helmet on I can't help but feel that RJD's voice isn't as distinctive as some. If Doom is going to be faceless all the way through then surely an actor primarily known for his voice would be a better bet? There's a reason they've cast Ralph Ineson as Galactus after all and part of what makes RDJ great is his facial expressions, not purely his voice. (setting aside that if you just wanted the voice you could get Mick Wingert for a hell of a lot less outlay, and yes I get that the return of RJD buys you a ridiculous amount of publicity, but again is it really worth the outlay if you're only gonna hear his voice?)
That's the reason I lean towards us seeing Doom's face and him being a Stark variant. I can't imagine they're going to get Downey Jr in and then not let us see him.
But as with all things, time will tell.
That's the reason I lean towards us seeing Doom's face and him being a Stark variant. I can't imagine they're going to get Downey Jr in and then not let us see him.
But as with all things, time will tell.
He does seem to take charge somewhat during a battle situation but at the same time it doesn't seem like their is always strategy. Everyone seems to mostly be doing their own thing, though everyone does have the same objective in mind. Of course their also what is going on when not on missions. They only come together when the threat is big enough that they come together.
Assuming that Downey is going into this as a character role rather than a Stark variant, the goal of a character actor is not to be recognized. If you watch a character actor perform and think of them as the actor instead of the character, then they've failed. The goal of a character actor is to disappear into a role, so that the audience totally buys into the character and their actions and emotions and forgets all about the artifice of the performance.
Actors aren't hired for the timbre of their voices, they're hired for their skill at creating a performance, at conveying emotion, at making us believe in the characters and the story. Mick Wingert is a good impersonator, but Downey is one of the great actors of our generation. The difference should be obvious.
I, for one, have never heard of Ralph Ineson. But I would assume they cast him because they felt his performance was better suited for the substance of the character than anyone else, not simply because he's famous or has a recognizable voice or whatever.