There's going to be a movie about him, but regardless of that, he's too important of a hero imo to be introduced as a cameo.
Will be in Civil War next year. Probably felt that it would be too packed with characters, especially after revealing vision. If Loki got cut from the film then no way they'd introduced Black Panther.
I think he'll have a bigger part in Civil War than he would have had, in Ultron. It'll be interesting to see how Wakanda / BP fits into Civil War, though.
I'm guessing he'll be pissed off that the avengers decided to fight a giant robot in his country. (Regardless of whether they were helping or not)
I was thinking he wants to recover stolen vibranium that is in Vision. Vision will likely have a problem with BP treating him like property.
More likely he would like to pick a bone with Hulk and Iron Man after they demolished his capital city in a huge fight.
Yep. Ultron went to Klaue for vibranium because BP would rather swim in the vibranium coins than sell it on the open market. If BP isn't willing to sell vibranium, I'm doubtful he would be willing to just let some foreignors take it and place it into a powerful android.
Finally got around to seeing it and I thought it was just average. It felt bloated, too heavy on the CGI and way overboard on the action. And it seemed to disregard endings to previous films, namely Winter Soldier and Iron Man 3. Robert Downy Jr I felt kinda mailed in his performance. The explanations for Pepper and Jane's abscenes was pretty lame. And coming from the perspective of someone who doesn't read the comics (but enjoys the movies), the Vision was a little too much for me. All the other Marvel movies have felt grounded in reality at least in some small way. But when the Vision showed up, I think it finally caused the movie to jump the shark a bit. Still had quite a few good moments, but really it was just too much of everything to be on the same level as the first one.
You're entitled to your opinion, but exactly what version of the Hulk, Guardians of the Galaxy, Thanos, Loki, or Infinity stones is based in reality? Also, why is a flying android so far fetched compared to all of this other junk?
It's hard to explain maybe but AOU felt like it went too overboard on the action and comic stuff. The very first scene it seemed like Whedon was trying to already outdo the NYC battle at the end of the first one. All the Avengers were doing things in that scene that were way beyond what we've seen them do in any of their other films. It reminded me of Legolas' fight scenes in Desolation of Smaug...just too cartoonish. I didn't dislike the film; it had good moments. But I didn't really love it. I think Whedon tried too hard to raise the bar from the first film and he just did too much.
Don't get me wrong, I get the criticisms I just didn't understand your initial comment. I liked the movie, it was...a comicbook movie for sure. I guess we'll see how Civil War goes -- hopefully this isn't the beginning of the downward spiral. Personally I really liked the movie, but I can see where others didn't. There were aspects I didn't like, and I don't know if it stands up to the original Avengers but I enjoyed it just as much when I was in the theatre.
Odin didn't give Loki the sceptor with the mindstone in it. Thanos did in an effort to have Loki use it to retrieve the Tesseract.
I liked the first scene. It establishes that the Avengers are now a fine tuned group of superheroes. You can assume they've been doing this kind of stuff "off-screen" dozens of times under Stark's Avengers' umbrella. They're a forced to be reckoned with which sets up what Ultron can do to be all the more impressive.
