Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Due to my inability to spend time to add content, dumping this here: Marketing and More Box office predictions. Hope someone can add them. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Can this source be added to Vision's section? Or is it too early? Npamusic (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I'm not sure what's in the EW item that isn't already in the Vision section. Except maybe Whedon's Universal Pictures quote? What do you propose? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It might already be in the article but this implies to me that Vision is created from J.A.R.V.I.S.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that most of this info can be placed in the plot section once we have that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Just complimentin' my peeps on such a great Marvel-movie article, right down to how comprehensively that archive links were added. Articles like this make me proud to be a member of WikiProject Comics. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tenebrae! And thank you for watching over it until we can all watch it to come back and contribute! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Age of Ultron has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To put the plot on there it was released in Hollywood and soon France so can you please put the plot on the page. 71.38.139.214 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 02:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The soundtrack listing is up. I'll try to create an article, but if anyone else wants to, feel free. Richiekim (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a guideline on this in general, but the current release information is somewhat

There are other countries listed in the

WP:FILMRELEASE the infobox is limited to just the first and country of origin.--TriiipleThreat (talk

) 10:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

At least two editors here have reverted multiple non-constructive edit by User:Caitlyn4272000, whom I've warned on his or her talk page to please discontinue edit-warring and to learn the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Age of Ultron has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Running time is 143 minutes according to Google search of "Avengers: Age of Ultron running time" RyanNaser (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources seem to vary, but the classification board says 141 minutes. Stickee (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we mention anywhere, maybe in the post section about Whedon's mentality coming out of making this film? I was just reading the Buzzfeed article (in which that quote in the development section was added) and I know other press junket pieces have had Whedon talk about how much this film really drained him and pushed him to his limits (ie him moving into the studio to finish editing the film). Can we use any of this material? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Want to compliment User:Chris McFeely for his very well-written rewrite of the plot. I had simply hacked away to bring it down from over 1,000 words, and he rephrased and in apt cases reorganized things beautiful. Kudos, sir. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Aw shucks, t'weren't nothin'! - Chris McFeely (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

According to a critic who got an early screening of the film, Loki was not seen in the film, which also included a mid-credits scene. here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Can't exactly go by a random twitter user who saw the film early. Rusted AutoParts 14:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If he doesn't appear when the film is released globally then it can either be noted that he was said to appear but in the end didn't or the info can just be removed altogether.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph does quote Elba saying Loki is in it, so I guess we need to leave it for now, but I absolutely did not see him. It's possible he's in the background in a "weird visions" scene as an Easter-egg extra, or perhaps his shot was cut, but otherwise I'm really not sure what Elba is talking about. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Loki is the shadowy person in Thor's vision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.81 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I watched the film, so do we have the all-clear to add the plot, since it's already playing in many theaters around the world? Also (spoilers), Tom Hiddleston/Loki is not in the movie, Stan Lee is a retired veteran who attends the Avengers' party, Julie Delpy is Madame B (from Black Widow's flahsback) and Linda Cardellini is Laura Barton, Hawkeye's wife. Jal11497 (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This comes up with every major movie release, and the answer is "yes". The movie is now in general release, you are perfectly entitled to add it. Somebody will moan about "spoilers" but that goes against Wikipedia policy. The movie is out, add the plot if you can. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The 1,016 words goes wayyyy against a different WIkipedia guideline, at

WP:FILMPLOT. I'll address this in a few minutes. I;m stil at work --Tenebrae (talk

) 20:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae:, have you seen the film (I'm guessing you haven't because of your hiding of the plot before realising that it has gone public :))? If not then why not leave it and then as it is released in various countries around the world, then people begin to copyedit it down? I can look at it tommorow afternoon since it comes out in England tommorow anyway.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I saw it last week. I just hadn't realized it's opened in France, Italy, Norway and Sweden, so I restored the plot and am now trimming it to 700 words or less.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll probably still have a look over it tommorow anyway, but good luck on cutting it down tonight.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ditto. I've gotten it down to 671, which leaves us nearly 30 words to play with. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Vision PRESUMABLY destroys Ultrons last body. We don't actually SEE this happening, merely a flash, and Vision HAS stated that he would rather not do so.85.229.59.77 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a really good point. It happens off-camera, and all we see is a flash. The movie never shows Ultron's last body definitively destroyed. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Age of Ultron has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

--39.32.125.156 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Avengers 2: Age of Ultron Movie Info:English 39.32.125.156 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jamietw (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The movie was released today in the UK (23 April). Is this important enough information to be included in the side infobox? In between the Dolby Theatre and North America? I thought it might be since it's full week before North America gets it. Or is the UK not as noteworthy? 109.154.71.44 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the release section. But no. The infobox has the country of origin and the first air date of the film, so the UK is not noteworthy enough.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And anyway, it was released in France, Italy, Norway, Finland and Sweden before the UK. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't it released in several Asian countries on April 22 too? Worth a mention I think.--

Krystaleen

02:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Find a

citation first. --Tenebrae (talk

) 04:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

After looking into this, I realise the movie was released in most European and a few Asian countries beginning 22 March, not just the UK. But anyway, thanks for responding and I understand what you're saying regarding the country of origin. 109.154.71.44 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are three examples from The New York Times, the last of which is a pickup from the news agency Reuters. Both the Times and Reuters use "satisfied with."

• "Hotels Embrace Sustainability to Lure Guests and Cut Costs"

Those who participate in green programs are generally more satisfied with their stay, according to Rohit Verma, a Cornell University professor who has studied...
April 28, 2015 - By AMY ZIPKIN - Business Day - Print Headline: "Hotels Embrace Sustainability, With Beehives, Biodiesel and Unmade Beds"

• "Legs Give Moths a Flying Start"

The lightest ones sometimes don’t open their wings at all, satisfied with a hop and then another hop and so on. Others open them after they are fully airborne.
April 28, 2015 - By JAMES GORMAN - Science - Print Headline: "Legs Give Moths a Flying Start"

• "Centrica Prepared for Takeover Approach-Chairman"

Conn said the government had not made such a request to Centrica. "I think the government are quite satisfied with Centrica the way it is," Conn said.
April 27, 2015 - By REUTERS - Business Day - Print Headline: "Centrica Prepared for Takeover Approach-Chairman"

A site search here [1] turned up not a single example of "satisfied by." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My mistake and apologies- I seem to be misremembering the style guide. Also, I'm not American, so that's probably got something to do with it.

talk

) 21:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite alright / all right. (Little joke there for a fellow grammarian!) With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Age of Ultron has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "Avengers: Age of Ultron is an upcoming American superhero film" to "Avengers: Age of Ultron is the latest American superhero film" because it was released on April-22-2015. Editing is necessary. Shiva Ashok (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 03:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

After seeing the film for a second time, I've made some minor adjustments. First, Klaue's locale is definitely South Africa — while the onscreen text says only "Salvage Yard, African Coast," the cast credits refer to "Johannesburg Cops," "Johannesburg Onlookers," etc. Also, there's no Gemma from Agents of SHIELD. Linda Cardellini is credited onscreen though, curiously, not in the PDF cast credits distributed to press. Josh Brolin is uncredited in both cases.

Sokovia is given as the name of the country and the city both. No mention is made of Stark and Barton retiring from the team; I'm not even sure how one can infer that, since Stark drives off in a car the same as he (and Banner) drove off in the first movie. Additionally, we never definitively see the Vision killing Ultron: All we see is a flash in the background of some woods and no mention is made of the Vision killing Ultron. Finally, Fury at the end tells Romanoff that SHIELD believes it has tracked the remains of the Quinjet, but isn't sure it's the Quinjet since the Quinjet was on stealth mode.

I also found a cool Easter egg: The name of the band in Rogers' hallucination is The Roy Thomas __________ (Quartet? Players? It went by quicky and I didn't get enough of a look). --Tenebrae (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that someone has reverted your edits? After seeing the movie myself, I can confirm everything you say but someone doesn't seem to believe you. 109.154.71.44 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with these edits, though

talk

) 19:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've left a collegial note on user:adamstom.97's page asking him to join the talk-page discussion. -Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

When the credits said "Johannesburg", are we sure that wasn't just because they filmed it there, which we know they did? Because a quick look on Google maps shows that Johannesburg is no where near the coast. I think that just saying African salvage yard will be most appropriate, unless we find a reliable source confirming the location. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wakanda is specifically mentioned by Dr. Bruce Banner in his research, and even in the comics, Wakanda is the main source of Vibranium. While the scene is filmed in Johannesburg, the in-movie location is Wakanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.165.10.131 (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

talk

) 22:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

talk

) 22:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I just watched the film again, and Stark and Barton definitely retire from the team. Just because they never say the word retire doesn't mean that they haven't. And it doesn't mean that they won't return in the next movie. All this means is that they have definitely left, and now Cap and Nat are training new recruits. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Working here and there on the page now. Just for what's here (not sure what the page looks like atm), Klaue got the vibranium out of Wakanda, so where they meet is not Wakanda. Also, I wouldn't read the ending as Barton and Stark retiring, more that they are just not looking to be with the team. If you read those two things as retiring, fine, but I don't think "retiring" as the word should be used. Hope that helps at all with my two cents. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

adamstom97, with all due respect: "Just because they never say the word retire doesn't mean that they haven't." Yes, it does: By not saying they're retiring, they are not retiring. Retiring is strictly your personal, POV interpretation. Mine is that Stark is driving home and will suit up as Iron Man the minute he's needed, and that Barton will come when called. Who's right? You or me? Are you going to insist my interpretation is impossible and could never, ever happen? You really don't think they'll be back for Infinity War?

The point is, these are both interpretations. All we can say is what the movie itself concretely, manifestly shows. And that is: Stark drives away, Barton returns to his farm. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The plot section ends with the statement, "In a mid-credits scene, Thanos retrieves the Infinity Gauntlet and, dissatisfied with the failures of his pawns, vows to hunt for the Infinity Stones personally." I've just seen the film, and that sentence gives a misleading impression of what happens. Thanos doesn't say anything like, "I vow to hunt for the Infinity Stones personally." What he says is something closer to, "Now I'll do it myself"; I don't recall the exact words. I think the final sentence needs rewriting, since in its current form it's too much like editorial interpretation of the film. And on another issue, I'm afraid I'm baffled by this edit by

Close — he smiles and says, "Fine. I'll do it myself" as he puts on the glove, which contains empty spaces for the stones. I'll admit "vows to hunt" seems a little dramatic (I didn't write it) but as he's been trying to collect the stones throughout three previous movies, the antecedent for the pronoun "it" is the process of gathering the stones. Maybe it should be something like "and says it's time to gather the stones personally." --Tenebrae (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We never see the Vision destroy Ultron — all we see is a flash of light in the background of some woods. And the Vision never says he destroyed Ultron.

And you know what? I say it's more likely he absorbed Ultron into the Mind Gem, especially after having made such a big deal of his not wanting to kill Ultron.

That's POV interpretation, of course — but no more so than stating the Vision destroyed Ultron. All we ever see is that he appears to destroy Ultron. If one person can insist Ultron is destroyed, another can insist he was absorbed into the Mind Gem. Who's right?--Tenebrae (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

talk

) 04:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly fine by me. One other editor a couple of days ago wrote simply, "The Vision confronts Ultron's last remaining body" after editors were going back and forth on destroy/appears to destroy. I certainly favor that. But shortly after the other editor added that seemingly safe, compromise version, the destroy/appears to destroy back-and-forth began again. I'm all for "The Vision confronts Ultron's last remaining body" and letting it go at that. What say you? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that "The Vision confronts Ultron's last remaining body" on its own can work. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems more accurate, and is just as ambiguous as the film is.

talk

) 10:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I know that, from the point of view of fans and "wild mass guessing" theories, the fate of Ultron may seem unclear. But for wikipedia standards, it is not. To move the image focus out of a character that is about to die is a common thing in cinema. As for "absorving" Ultron inside himself, the mind gem has never been stated in screen to have that kind of power. And neither in comics, as far as I know (don't confuse it with the soul gem of Adam Warlock, that's the one with that power). The idea that Ultron may still be alive is just original research, and should not be taken into account. Cambalachero (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion that he must have been killed because "to move the image focus out of a character that is about to die is a common thing in cinema" is your personal inference — your POV. The concrete fact is that all we see is a flash of light — we absolutely do not know what happened. And in the movie universe, who knows what the mind gem can do? There are tons of differences between the movies and the comics — like Tony Stark rather than Hank Pym creating Ultron.

All we can say for certain is what the movie concretely, manifestly depicts. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

We have seen that the gem can fire laser beams. The last time we saw Ultron, he was alone and helpless against Vision, and we saw a flash of light. We have seen Vision afterwards, and the Avengers in their post-adventure time, no longer concerned about Ultron (no character gave the smallest hint that Ultron may still be around somewhere). If we skip the unconfirmed things that the gem may do, and stick to the ones we have seen it on-screen to do, then there is no room for doubt: a last laser beam killed Ultron. Cambalachero (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You're making an argument for your case. That's

WP:SYNTH. I could come up with equally plausible alternate scenarios. All we can say is what the movie itself actually, concretely depicts. --Tenebrae (talk

) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, we don't know that the gem fires "laser" beams. They could be photon beams, electromagnetic plasma beams or any number of things. I say this to illustrate the danger of assumptions and inferences. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that lasers are beams of photons and of electromagnetic radiation,

talk

) 22:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

D'oh!

Well, psionic blast then! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's not a "Johannesburg shipyard" as Jo'burg is hundreds of miles inland. Should it be changed to "Wakandan shipyard?" All we really know is it is in Africa. Mikeymo1741 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been changed to "African", which makes sense, given that we know it's not in Wakanda. Also, does Stark use "V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A." or the "hulkbuster" armor?

talk

) 15:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The armor is "Hulkbuster", while "V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A." is just the delivery system. See http://www.hypable.com/avengers-age-of-ultron-director-and-cast-answer-our-questions/, at the second-to-last "point". Booyahhayoob (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A." may well be the delivery system. The movie never calls it "Hulkbuster," though. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The article linked by Booyahhayoob does. DinoSlider (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. If the movie doesn't explicitly use that term onscreen, neither can we. However, with a reliable-source citation, we can certainly link to Hulkbuster from the plot's terminology. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the use of "Infinity Gauntlet" should be removed for the same reason. I also don't remember the terms Helicarrier and Quinjet ever being used in an Avengers movie, but those are used in the plot sections. DinoSlider (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right about the gauntlet but both helicarrier and quinjet are used in dialogue.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen it once, so I can't be sure, but I recall hearing "carrier" not "helicarrier". DinoSlider (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Age of Ultron has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the fact that Ultron killed Baron von Strucker in his cell in the film.

Chroleno 519 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Not a significant plot element. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The base at the end of the film is captioned, New Avengers, with a capital "N". Coincidentally, the music in the scene is titled "New Avengers" on the soundtrack. So should the team that Cap assembles in the team be labeled New Avengers? This source from Entertainment Weekly does just that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense, but can we make that assumption that that is what the team is going to be called moving forward? One could view it as the base is just a new Avengers training facility and uses capitalization much like Avengers Tower. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be deliberately ambiguous on the filmmakers' part. But unless you're a hardcore fan who knows that such as thing as the New Avengers (proper noun, capitalized) exists, there's no reason for the average moviegoer to read it as other than a new Avengers facility. And besides, the entire phrase is capped "NEW AVENGERS FACILITY. UPSTATE NEW YORK." --Tenebrae (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

...to whichever editor came up with the description "capital city" — it is much, much better than my "same-name city." My compliments! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither the movie nor the filmmakers ever use that term. Just because some website calls it that doesn't make it official or cinematic canon. To call the enhanced Iron Man armor the "Hulkbuster" suit in a Plot-section footnote when no source connected to the movie calls it that is misleading and wrong. A comic-book website cannot unilaterally decide what the filmmakers "should have called something."

Compare it to the Plot-section footnote at The Avengers (2012 film), which says:

In an interview with Movieline, producer Kevin Feige stated that the Tesseract is based on the Cosmic Cube from Marvel comics.[260] After Thor: The Dark World, in an interview with CraveOnline, he stated that it was also the Space Infinity Stone.[261]

That's Feige saying something — not a writer for Comic Book Resources or Newsarama or whatever. Talk about it as being called Hulkbuster in the comics, with citing, elsewhere if necessary — but putting it a Plot-section footnote is giving some comics-site writer the power to change the filmmakers' language and terminology. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Marvel.com refers to it as Hulkbuster. DinoSlider (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It also isn't a writer from CBR (the source) using the terminology. It is terminology from Disney, as the content was something along the lines of "10 facts to know about AoU". So it is from Disney/Marvel, not a third party making that observation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. How about we use that Marvel page as a cite for this, rather than CBR or Newsarama or whatever that is. That would make it all much, much clearer. Thanks for the additional digging. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well the CBR source also provides the clarification on what Veronica actually is. Per the fact in that source: "A satellite in low orbit is always around Banner and at a moment’s notice, Tony Stark can deploy the Hulkbuster armor, get into it and stop the Hulk in his tracks." Having this clarifies that Veronica is the name of the deployment system as well as possibly the containment unit that surrounds the Hulk. By just using the Marvel source, we would only be confirming the armor name, not really what Veronica is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Subsection: RE: "visit"

Then both. I'll go ahead and add the Marvel cite.

And by the way: The Avengers "visit" Klaue? That is so not the right word. user:Adamston.97 doesn't like "investigate"? Fine. But that isn't simply a "visit" anymore than the Iron Man-Hulk battle is "a difference of opinion." Can we get another word there, please? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like it, I said that "visit" is the correct word, which it is. I don't know what you think visit means, but it is definitely fine being used here. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not correct. Per Merriam-Webster, aside from the definition used in phrases like "visited his wrath upon them" or "visited the sins of the fathers upon the children," the defintions are: to go to see in order to comfort or help [and] to pay a call on as an act of friendship or courtesy."

Per dictionary definition, the Avengers are not "visiting" Klaue. If you now knowingly revert to a word in purposeful defiance of its dictionary definition, then that is vandalism. "Go to" is an accurate phrase, and I trust you have nothing against using an accurate phrase as opposed to a word that is clearly problematic.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this sentence: "Together, they go to the base of arms dealer Ulysses Klaue in an African shipyard to obtain vibranium." The "They" is in reference to Ultron and the twins, not the Avengers. Honestly, I'm fine with either, but "visit" has much more pleasant connotation which makes it less appropriate considering the purpose of the trip.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If "go to" flows okay then I have no issue with using it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

To me both "visit" and "go to" are sound like weak writing—possibly "pay a visit to" or "travel to"?—something more descriptive than the first two options. "Descend upon" doesn't seem appropriate(ly neutral) in a Wikipedia context. Can anyone think of any other options?—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

So, back to the hulkbuster thing. If "Veronica" is the delivery system, not the armor, how about changing it to say that "Iron Man stops him with additional armor from his V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A. satellite". Also, the Iron Man's Armor in other media spells it in caps with periods, but it's not spelled like that here.

I think it is fine as it is. We refer to the "Veronica" weaponry, which is what is presented to us in the film (and Whedon's comments in the note mean to me that it is "Veronica" and not V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A.) and we also note the term Hulkbuster in the note since that is what we all know that the armor used is called (another source for this that I don't think has been mentioned yet is the soundtrack listing, which also uses the term Hulkbuster). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Two problems. One, it was a boxing match, not an MMA fight. Second, it's Mayweather, not Mayweathe.

Should probably be changed to: "...featured Boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.9.160 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 00:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have been reverted back to MMA fight. Can one of the editors redo Jedi94's change? - Daft Ada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.228.99 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. The traditional Fxguide article looking at the post production done on MCU films is available. As always, it's very insightful. I've only just begun to read it, but figured if a few of us worked on it together, we can get all the relative info into the article. I'm going to get the ref in there so it will be really easy to add new content from the article. Here is the Fxguide one, and another highlighting Territory Studios' UI work in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And Method Studios have one too. --Nick R^Talk 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I see you posted the Method Studios Avengers VFX images on your site. Method Studios has been contacted by Marvel and asked to remove it from all online sources as it breaches copyright laws. Thank you very much for your help. RenderBlender (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you got a source that backs this up (Not that it would in any way effect the image being taken down or anything of that kind.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. [email protected] can be reached for any confirmation. She is representing the copyright holder and has been asked by Marvel to have all of these images removed. Any help to have this image removed is appreciated. RenderBlender (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That maybe but the file is tagged as being a copy protected work and is being used under

fair-use rationale.--TriiipleThreat (talk

) 21:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Marvel owns the copyright and is asking that the images be removed from everywhere. They have been removed from the Method Studios site, where they started from in the first place. I don't understand how this is fair use. Marvel owns these images and wants them completely removed. Please let me know what information I need to provide as proof. I have been asked to help get this image taken down.RenderBlender (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

All

non-free content criteria.--TriiipleThreat (talk

) 21:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What the copyright holder wants is typically irrelevant in cases like this. The point of the legal doctrine of fair use, and the more restrictive

non-free content policy on Wikipedia, is to guide our hands when we use non-free (i.e., copyrighted) materials for educational or informational purposes, in cases where we do not have the permission of the copyright holder to release a work under a free license. (ESkog)^(Talk

) 11:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither of these names is used in the actual film, as far as i noticed, just Wanda Maximoff and Pietro Maximoff. Should the article mention that, and/or omit any uses of the names Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (other than things like quotes from people discussing the characters/roles)? --70.17.203.31 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither "Scarlet Witch" nor "Quicksilver" were used in the film that I could hear, per my two viewings of it. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Despite not being mention as "Scarlet Witch" or "Quicksilver", they are referred to in promotional media and in the credits as that.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In any case, the plot section does not use those names either Cambalachero (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the condenses wrong for anyone else? On the site it reads, "Critic Consensus: Exuberant and eye-popping, Avengers: Age of Ultron serves as an overstuffed but mostly satisfying sequel, reuniting its predecessor's unwieldy cast with a few new additions and a worthy foe.", but it's different here. I hate that "all-in-one" code...

I just fixed it. For some reason Theo's Little Bot hasn't been running Task 22 lately. Technical 13 is working on solving the issue.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Jemma Simmons in the Avengers training center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.81 (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Source?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If you've seen the movie, you'll know where to source it. duh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.83 (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Having now seen the film twice and looked out for her, she is NOT in the training centre 82.45.105.61 (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen the film once, but I did not see Elizabeth Henstridge's character Jemma Simmons. I'll look again tomorrow.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I did see a source confirming that no cast from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. were part of the film whatsoever. I will have to look that up, however having seen the film I do not believe Henstridge was featured. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mcs2050wiki: To be fair, we need a source confirming that she is in the film, not confirmed that she is not, and the IP who suggested it originally has dropped it, so I don't think finding the source will help anyone (Unless you think it can be used in the production section or something)--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

On May 20, 2015 sourced content was deleted without any reason. Why was this content deleted? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you check the article history, you can see that the content is disputed as either trivia or not properly cited. Rusted AutoParts 14:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The first part about Loki being cut is mentioned elsewhere in the article. No need to mention again. The marketing addition is trivial and something we do not need to mention. There is nothing distinctive about the fact that an image used in the trailer never was featured in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comment and content deletion is based on wrong assumptions. I'm gonna respond to your comment by dividing my response into two parts: 1.) Thor's dream sequence and 2.) January 2015 trailer. Thor's dream sequence: The main aspect of the content addition was the splitting of Thor's dream sequence into two parts and why it was trimmed down i.e. the opinion differences between Whedon and Marvel Executives, not the info about Tom Hiddleston. Since the info about Tom Hiddleston not appearing in the movie has been already mentioned in the article I reworded the passage accordingly. (See this edit and the edit summary. January 2015 trailer: The content addition wasn't about "the fact that an image used in the trailer never was featured in the film." The content addition was about the information Marvel's marketing strategy for Avengers: Age of Ultron i.e. why and with what purpose a certain image from Thor's dream sequence was added to the January 2015 trailer. And that information is not "trivial", but "distinctive" enough to be mentioned. Based on the foregoing remarks I offer the following rewording as a proposal to get consensus in this issue: Instead film makers decided to split Thor's dream scene into two parts, but the second part was cut because Marvel Executives felt introducing the antagonist from the 2012 Avengers film at this point doesnt' work.^[1][2] Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige explained a trailer scene showing a mysterious woman disrobing in a cave was added purposefully for marketing reasons since her appearance was "an arresting image" which in Feige's view would mean that "‘People are going to read into all this stuff.’"^[3][4] Questions: Can these rewording be added as content. And if not which information in which way can be added? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As previously stated, we have already covered Whedon's conflict with the editors on the dream scene, as well as Hiddelston being removed from the film. As well, the marketing section is already very dense as it is, and what you are suggesting to add is not unique to this film. Many films use this technique all the time, so there is nothing noteworthy or substantial about this. So again, none of this has to be, or should be, added to the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks your comment. With respect to the January 2015 trailer I agree with you after reading your comment. Contentwise we have a consensus on this issue. But I would like to preserve the April 2015 Cinemablend.com source by adding it. This wouldn't add any content nor expand the "very dense" marketing section, but simply add a source leading to some background information on Marvel's marketing strategy for Avengers: Age of Ultron. What's your opinion? With respect to the Thor's dream sequence there's also a chance for a consensus. The Thor subplot in Age of Ultron is (as mentioned in the two sources cited by me) confusing and doesn't make much sense. I think there's a need for a substantial contentwise clarification how the subplot was originally conceived and how the constraints of editing made the final subplot so confusing. But that would require in my eyes a substantial and long reformulation which you certainly would disapprove. Nonetheless I think there's a way to resolve this. I would like to replace the Slashfilm source after the sentence "In the scene, Thor would be possed by a Norn, a goddess of destiny within the Marvel universe while Selvig would quiz her about Thor's hallucination."^[5] with the two cited sources above. Both sources together don't only explain Whedon's conflict with the editors on the dream scene (better than the Slashfilm source), but also explain how Thor's subplot was originally conceived and how the constraints of editing made the final subplot so confusing. In other words: Existing content can be maintained while new content can be added and found without the need for a content reformulation and expansion. So what do you think of replacing the Slashfilm source with the Polygon and Collider.com sources? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Because my request for comment was left unanswered for several days I executed my source additions as described above to close the issue. Anyone who has objections to this shall state them here at the talk page to resolve any possible conflict peacefully. Thanks. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Or in the section below, since I've already started the discussion there. And no objection, just a desire to use the actual source and to have a timestamp. It's all good.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)