EDITORIAL: What Phase Two Could Have Been

Pardon me for not including pictures. Once again, the Internet is not on my side.

One of the things I loved about 2012's The Avengers is that while you don't have to watch any previous Marvel movies to understand what's going on, there are several references to them. Bruce Banner: "Last time I was in New York, I kind of broke Harlem." Loki: "Your father! He did tell you my true parentage, did he not?" Black Widow: "Coulson, you know Stark trusts me about as far as he can throw me." Nick Fury: "Remind me again how you made your fortune, Stark?" Captain America, in reference to the Tesseract: "HYDRA's secret weapon."
 
There's even references to the Destroyer and the Hulk's origins. Very, very cool stuff indeed, and I hope Age of Ultron makes similar references to previous Phase 2 films. However, there are a few highly controversial things I would have handled differently in the Phase 2 films to make it all come together in next year's Avengers sequel. Obviously Joss Whedon is the mastermind; he knows what he's doing and I have full faith in his story-telling ability. This is just my personal perspective; what I would have done to make it a little more connected.
   
Ah yes, the film trolls like to call Iron Crap 3. And it wasn't crap, I tells ya. It had a lot of humor, which I loved--I mean, who doesn't like to laugh? All the memorable one-liners--"I'm still trying to figure out what happened to the first mouse," "It's a big bunny, relax about it!" "I loved you in a Christmas story, by the way."--these made the film memorable and fun for me. I love it, and I hope the next solo Iron Man uses the same level of humor.
 
The ending fight scene was just so cool for me. A league of Iron Man suits against a league of Extremis terrorists? It was fun for me to see. However, there are two notable things I would have done different.
 
One, I would have gave Rhodey a lot more fight scenes. I'm not quite sure why Shane Black felt the need to put the president into the Iron Patriot armor; it was really disappointing to not see Iron Man and his best-buddy kick ass side by side. I'd prefer him to not have the Iron Patriot armor either, but I get where they were trying to go with that--the government making sure the country knows that they can protect them. And I guess it did look pretty cool, but War Machine is cooler.
 
Second, I wouldn't have had Stark blow up his suits at the end. For one, it didn't really add up for me. The whole theme of the movie is "We create our own demons"--something I hope carries over into Age of Ultron. In 1999, at a New Years Eve party, Stark created a demon. As a genius, billionaire, playboy and philanthropist who manufactured weapons for a living, you know he created a lot more demons. So why blow up the suits? The whole reason Stark was able to win the battle with Aldrich is because he had the suits.
 
Now obviously, this was to show Pepper he cared for her more than his "distractions," and he created another Iron Legion to back up Ultron in next year's AOU. But I think it would have been a lot cooler for him to say something like, "I'm going to let JARVIS take over for a while," or not necessarily that but something to that affect, and left the Iron Man armors intact. That way you can see them again in next year's Avengers sequel in all their glory before Ultron takes them over. In my opinion, saving IM3's Iron Legion to be used in AOU would have been way cooler. We only got to see them for a good twenty minutes of film time anyway, and a lot of them looked really badass.
   
Gosh this article is probably gonna get under some folk's skin. Oh well, I'll just go ahead and say it. I'm a Loki lover. I guess it's a man crush. I think Loki is one of the--if not the--best villains to ever grace the world of superhero films. Many people thought Tom Hiddleston's Loki overshadowed not only Malekith but also the star of the show, Thor himself.
 
What would I have done differently with Loki? I would have had him actually betray Thor in the Thor-Loki-Jane-Malekith scene.
 
To refresh your memory, Loki spends the better half of the movie trying to get Thor to trust him again. When Thor finally gives in and takes off Loki's cuffs, Loki stabs Thor with a dagger and sends him down a hill, kicking him and spouting off vicious things. Then, he cuts off Thor's hand and offers Jane to Malekith as a gift. This is all soon revealed to be a trick, however: Loki only made it look like he stabbed Thor and cut off his hand. It was all an illusion to destroy the Aether.
 
When I was watching this scene, I instantly knew it was being faked by Loki. In an earlier scene, he says "Trust my rage," and it did kinda feel a little too soon for him to betray Thor all over again. However, it was just executed so beautifully, I wish it had been an actual event in the movie. Loki just being an evil little shit and not giving a damn about Earth or Jane. Obviously he still is an evil little shit--he killed his dad to become king, which was awesome--but the way the movie ended the illusion left me scratching my head. I mean, think about it, in the movie the Aether is floating up in the air and Thor yells out: "Loki! Now!" Did that not feel ridiculous to anyone else? After all, it was all an illusion anyway, Loki shouldn't have had to make it look like Thor had a hand for him to use it.
 
Then, Malekith would have escaped with the Aether--like he did in the movie anyway. Thor would have used his good hand to beat his brother to a pulp with Mjolnir, and Loki would have faked his death in a similar manner. Yes, Thor would then spend the rest of the movie with a hand missing, and it's safe to say that would have looked rather odd and silly--this is just me ranting here man--but I think it would have been cool to see what I have in mind. In Age of Ultron, it would be revealed that Tony Stark created an electronic hand for him to use, similar to what Luke Skywalker had to do in Star Wars. This hand is infused with his arm/bloodstream/what-the-[frick]-ever, so that Thor could lift Mjolnir with it. Then, when Ultron arises, since he's connected to computers and electronic shit everywhere, Ultron could use Thor as a tool to distract/destroy the Avengers while he's out evil-doing. Is this concept ridiculous? Hell yeah it is, but [frick] off, I still say it'd be cool to see.
 
A lot of people complain that Malekith was under-developed in this movie. Director Alan Taylor said there were some scenes left out that would show why Malekith's people are so passionate about sending the universe into darkness, something to make them at least somewhat more sympathetic. I would have included these scenes, because it does get kind of confusing as to why Malekith is doing what he's doing. Towards the end, I would have made the big ship that the Dark Elves were riding in crash on Earth, instead of Svartalfheim. In the beginning of the movie, when Malekith is awakening in that chamber.. Man, imagine Ultron standing there, as if on a throne. Imagine. Since SHIELD later collapsed, Ultron could have gotten his hands on this pretty easily as a place to story his Ultron army. Is this idea ridiculous too? Probably. But like I said before, I think it'd be cool to see. I also would have left Malekith's death ambiguous--you know, instead of tearing him limb from limb--so that he could clearly return in a future Thor film.
   
Since this movie is damn near perfection, I won't say much, but I do have a few, small, irrelevant nick-picks. In the comics, things tend to always happen in the present. But at some point old issues tend to happen "ten years ago," and year numbers are just retconned. That's why you'll see a comic taking place in 1984 and a comic taking place in the present, but none of the characters have aged. It seems that the movies are doing something similar to this, with the movies happening in "real time." Captain America: The Winter Soldier takes place two years after The Avengers, because it was released around two years after it. This might not bother some people, but it does me. In twenty years, will these movies have happened twenty years ago? I hope not, because that wouldn't make sense. I'm all for movies having a chronological order, but there's no real reason why it has to take place in real time. I'd prefer them to all happen one after the other, similar to the way Phase One was handled. I mean, Phase One was released out of order, but IM2 took place six months after IM1, Thor took place starting near the end of IM2, and TIH right after that. Release them in chronological order, but starting/ending around the same time frame. That's something that makes sense.
 
One other thing is that I wish they'd called them by their "superhero" names more. I believe they called Anthony Mackie's character Falcon like once. Black Widow I believe was twice. Why can't they do that more often? I mean it's a spy thriller.. there's nothing wrong with using code names, especially considering the circumstances of HYDRA watching every damn thing you do.
 
That's all I've got. I've seen Guardians of the Galaxy twice now, and there ain't much I would change about that one, either. I wish they hadn't killed Ronan, as I think it'd be great to see him return and be somewhat of a "franchise villain,"--think Green Goblin or Dr. Doom. But keep in mind I have no genuine complaint with what has been done. I love the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and I love being entertained. I'm not complaining here, just sharing some random thoughts.
 
So do you like my ideas? Are you currently thanking Odin none of them came to light? Tell me what you think and give me shit in the comment section below!