James Spader is ULTRON. So Then What, Exactly, is Ultron?
At this point, let's just start making lists of longtime friends of Robert Downey Jr. and assume that they're all going to wind up in Marvel Movies eventually. James Spader has been cast as ULTRON for "Avengers 2." Newsworthy in and of itself, definitely, but interesting because it highlights the fact that there's a lot more mystery this time around.
The only "secret" in the first "Avengers" was what the aliens were going to be called (and that still seems more like the result of Marvel going into production without actually knowing what name/design they were legally allowed to use since these were clearly supposed to be Skrulls at one point); but since it's already been confirmed that the movie Ultron will have a different origin (in the comics he's a rogue invention of perennial super-science fuck-up Hank Pym, aka "Ant-Man" whose movie isn't due out until after A2) this is that rare moment where longtime fans aren't really ahead of the game as to what the story of a Marvel Studios production is going to be (no, "predicting" that "Avengers" would go "meet, disagree, make up, smack the Putty Patrol around NYC" doesn't count.)
Hit the jump for some crazy theories:
Ultron's origin in the comics is a bit convoluted: He first shows up as a masked mystery-villain, then reveals himself to be a humanoid robot, then reveals that he's a self-improving, artificially-intelligent machine that originated as an early stab at sentient robotics by Dr. Pym that went nuts (Oedipus Complex - he hates his "father" and is obsessed with Pym's then-girlfriend Janet Van Dyne aka "The Wasp") and ran off to go become evil.
The announcement-teaser shown at SDCC was an extreme-closeup of what looked like a new Iron Man helmet under-construction, zooming out to reveal Ultron's face at the very end. That started what's probably the easiest "call" to make guessing-game wise: With no Ant-Man on the scene, Ultron's creator will probably end up being Tony Stark (in comics, Ultron It makes the most sense, and it's not like Marvel would be against having more things in these movies lead back to Iron Man. One of the Iron Man armors gets a mind of it's own? That's not a bad new origin, and as good a way as any to get Stark back into the game after he more or less (SPOILER ALERT!) decides to dial back on the Iron Man-ing at the end of "Iron Man 3."
The fun conclusion jumped to next: The "A.I. gone bad" mind inside Ultron will be J.A.R.V.I.S., Stark's personal A.I. voiced in all the movies thus far by Paul Bettany. That'd be a cool twist and a novel use of the shared-universe conceit (minor character from one series becomes a big bad in the team-up ten films later), and hypnotizing the human-butler version of Jarvis was part of Ultron's debut story in Avengers #68, but with Spader now confirmed as the voice (and probably fake-human "face," at least some of the time) of the character that theory seems to be out the window.
Or is it? I've got a theory of my own: Very silly, kind of crazy, pretty unlikely but not 100% outside the realm of possibility:
What if Ultron is DUMMY?*
As in "Dummy," the semi-self-aware robotic arm that Tony Stark keeps around for menial tasks, treats like the world's dumbest robot dog but also seems to have some kind of sentimentality about (he's one of the few things being taken away from the ruins of Stark's house in IM3)? It's already been established, after all, that Dummy is more-or-less the precursor to J.A.R.V.I.S. and all Stark's other robot/robot-esque projects...
...so it'd make a nice retrofit of the comics' origin (and maybe another chance to give Pepper Potts something to do in an "Avengers" movie, something RDJ insisted on in the first one.) And if you're looking to send audiences home with some kind of lingering "whoa," the idea that a comic relief background player from "Iron Man" turns into a dangerous villain more-or-less because of all that abuse we were laughing at would do it - plus, you KNOW that Downey's "...DUMMY!??" reaction would be fucking priceless.
Ultron the Big Scary Terminator-Esque Robot is giving his big "Reap what you sow!!!" self-justifying villain speech, an instead of flashing back to a war-zone or some childhood trauma it's just scene after scene of RDJ being a dick to a robot arm? GOLD. Potential subsequent related dialogue? ("I yell at my microwave at least once a day and it never tried to take over the world or kill me! ...well, okay maybe that one time.") Solid.
Realistically, this is pretty damn unlikely - mostly because it it might be a little too far over the line between "good silly" (re: Thor) and "too silly" (re: Frog Thor,") but I'd be all over it. Meanwhile, I wouldn't count J.A.R.V.I.S. out as having a bigger role in a robot/AI-related story: If both Ultron and Scarlet Witch are in this, it'd be really surprising if The Vision didn't turn up as well.
*Just so we're clear: If it turns out I'm even half right about this, I'm never ever shutting up about it.
The only "secret" in the first "Avengers" was what the aliens were going to be called (and that still seems more like the result of Marvel going into production without actually knowing what name/design they were legally allowed to use since these were clearly supposed to be Skrulls at one point); but since it's already been confirmed that the movie Ultron will have a different origin (in the comics he's a rogue invention of perennial super-science fuck-up Hank Pym, aka "Ant-Man" whose movie isn't due out until after A2) this is that rare moment where longtime fans aren't really ahead of the game as to what the story of a Marvel Studios production is going to be (no, "predicting" that "Avengers" would go "meet, disagree, make up, smack the Putty Patrol around NYC" doesn't count.)
Hit the jump for some crazy theories:
Ultron's origin in the comics is a bit convoluted: He first shows up as a masked mystery-villain, then reveals himself to be a humanoid robot, then reveals that he's a self-improving, artificially-intelligent machine that originated as an early stab at sentient robotics by Dr. Pym that went nuts (Oedipus Complex - he hates his "father" and is obsessed with Pym's then-girlfriend Janet Van Dyne aka "The Wasp") and ran off to go become evil.
The announcement-teaser shown at SDCC was an extreme-closeup of what looked like a new Iron Man helmet under-construction, zooming out to reveal Ultron's face at the very end. That started what's probably the easiest "call" to make guessing-game wise: With no Ant-Man on the scene, Ultron's creator will probably end up being Tony Stark (in comics, Ultron It makes the most sense, and it's not like Marvel would be against having more things in these movies lead back to Iron Man. One of the Iron Man armors gets a mind of it's own? That's not a bad new origin, and as good a way as any to get Stark back into the game after he more or less (SPOILER ALERT!) decides to dial back on the Iron Man-ing at the end of "Iron Man 3."
The fun conclusion jumped to next: The "A.I. gone bad" mind inside Ultron will be J.A.R.V.I.S., Stark's personal A.I. voiced in all the movies thus far by Paul Bettany. That'd be a cool twist and a novel use of the shared-universe conceit (minor character from one series becomes a big bad in the team-up ten films later), and hypnotizing the human-butler version of Jarvis was part of Ultron's debut story in Avengers #68, but with Spader now confirmed as the voice (and probably fake-human "face," at least some of the time) of the character that theory seems to be out the window.
Or is it? I've got a theory of my own: Very silly, kind of crazy, pretty unlikely but not 100% outside the realm of possibility:
What if Ultron is DUMMY?*
As in "Dummy," the semi-self-aware robotic arm that Tony Stark keeps around for menial tasks, treats like the world's dumbest robot dog but also seems to have some kind of sentimentality about (he's one of the few things being taken away from the ruins of Stark's house in IM3)? It's already been established, after all, that Dummy is more-or-less the precursor to J.A.R.V.I.S. and all Stark's other robot/robot-esque projects...
...so it'd make a nice retrofit of the comics' origin (and maybe another chance to give Pepper Potts something to do in an "Avengers" movie, something RDJ insisted on in the first one.) And if you're looking to send audiences home with some kind of lingering "whoa," the idea that a comic relief background player from "Iron Man" turns into a dangerous villain more-or-less because of all that abuse we were laughing at would do it - plus, you KNOW that Downey's "...DUMMY!??" reaction would be fucking priceless.
Ultron the Big Scary Terminator-Esque Robot is giving his big "Reap what you sow!!!" self-justifying villain speech, an instead of flashing back to a war-zone or some childhood trauma it's just scene after scene of RDJ being a dick to a robot arm? GOLD. Potential subsequent related dialogue? ("I yell at my microwave at least once a day and it never tried to take over the world or kill me! ...well, okay maybe that one time.") Solid.
Realistically, this is pretty damn unlikely - mostly because it it might be a little too far over the line between "good silly" (re: Thor) and "too silly" (re: Frog Thor,") but I'd be all over it. Meanwhile, I wouldn't count J.A.R.V.I.S. out as having a bigger role in a robot/AI-related story: If both Ultron and Scarlet Witch are in this, it'd be really surprising if The Vision didn't turn up as well.
*Just so we're clear: If it turns out I'm even half right about this, I'm never ever shutting up about it.
Awards Statue Engravers Suddenly Frantic To Master Proper Spelling Of "MCCONAUGHEY"
Actors who started out as "heartthrobs" only to descend into walking-joke territory getting serious comebacks in middle-age is becoming a trend of 21st Century Hollywood, what with Robert Downey Jr. improbably serving as the masthead of a Disney action franchise and Ben Affleck getting cast in some sort of caped-person movie over the weekend. It's been looking for awhile now that Matthew McConaughey would be added to that list after solid turns in little-seen features like "Lincoln Lawyer" and "Killer Joe." Now he's going full steam ahead with "Dallas Buyers Club," a biopic of hard-living rodeo cowboy Ron Woodroof who, after being diagnosed with HIV in 1985 and nearly dying from ineffective AZT treatments, went looking for FDA-unapproved medications in Mexico; eventually becoming the unassuming leader of a semi-underground meds-smuggling network - ultimately keeping himself alive about six and a half years longer than his initial diagnosis projected.
OSCAR: "A true story, you say? Average rural bigot (Woodroof was apparently not the biggest fan of the gay community prior to his experience) opens his eyes and becomes a hero, you say? One-man-against-The-System, you say? AIDS you say!? Attractive famous person losing a bunch of weight to simulate debilitating illness, you say!!???"
Still, hell of a trailer. There's the usual heavy-sigh to be had about how of course it takes finding a story wherein the hero/victim/martyr is a straight white guy whose so classically All American he's a literal Cowboy to get mainstream audiences to show up for a movie about just how much of a blind eye we turned to the AIDS crisis... but effective is effective.
OSCAR: "A true story, you say? Average rural bigot (Woodroof was apparently not the biggest fan of the gay community prior to his experience) opens his eyes and becomes a hero, you say? One-man-against-The-System, you say? AIDS you say!? Attractive famous person losing a bunch of weight to simulate debilitating illness, you say!!???"
Still, hell of a trailer. There's the usual heavy-sigh to be had about how of course it takes finding a story wherein the hero/victim/martyr is a straight white guy whose so classically All American he's a literal Cowboy to get mainstream audiences to show up for a movie about just how much of a blind eye we turned to the AIDS crisis... but effective is effective.
Escape to The Movies: "THE WORLD'S END"
BEN AFFLECK IS BATMAN
Headline kind of says it all. Nothing else to report, but there you go. Ben Affleck is the new Dark Knight for "Batman vs. Superman." This only just now happened, so not much else to say. A few thoughts do come to mind immediately, however...
Okay, Internet? Get it out of your system: Bennifer. Gigli. Jersey Girl. Reindeer Games. Armageddon. Ha ha ha. None of that matters. Literally. Affleck is basically a post-larvae actor/director at this point - nothing before "Gone Baby Gone" matters. Ben's the man.
Besides, he wasn't the problem in "Daredevil." If he played Batman/Bruce Wayne in the same basic manner as Daredevil/Matt Murdock he'd be the best one apart from Keaton, Conroy, Bader and Adam West (Fuck you, Adam West was good.)
This doesn't automatically mean the movie is that much closer to not sucking. Not using Christian Bale means this won't totally be the played-out Nolan Batman, yes. Not casting someone appreciably older than Henry Cavill means it can't be that close to "Dark Knight Returns;" but those pernicious influences are still there.
Fun Fact #1: Unless I'm forgetting someone, this makes Ben Affleck the only actor who has ever played Batman AND Superman (look it up.)
Fun Fact #2: This actually isn't a total surprise: Back when Warner Bros. was still committed to "Justice League" coming out opposite "Avengers 2," they offered Affleck the director's chair on that one with the caveat that he also play Batman. Supposedly he said no at the time. One thing changed... I wonder if the other thing has, too?
Poor Henry Cavill. Not only do they think you need Batman's help to make people want to see you as Superman again, they think you need Oscar-Winning-Megastar-Batman.
Honestly? I'm immediately fond of this decision - and not just because it means he might possibly maybe bring some (or all?) of the production of a DC movie or two here to Boston. This guy is a good actor, he can play tough, he has range... but he's also funny and "regular." I'm sure the paycheck on this is big enough that he'd do the part in helium-voice if they asked, but if they let him play Batman as something other than the one-note growling asshole we've been putting up with for the last decade he could really be something special. Enough time has passed since George Clooney - we can have a stable, semi-happy Batman again.
Seriously, though - Ben? Mr. Affleck? Please bring some or all of this production to Boston. The last Gotham City was in fucking Philly for crissakes.
Let's get THIS dull idiocy out of the way: No, Matt Damon would be a shitty Robin. Casey Affleck for Robin, though? That I like. Jennifer Garner would be a not-awful Wonder Woman, but that's not gonna happen. No, Kevin Smith doesn't need to be anywhere near this - he's probably gonna launch another fucking circlejerk podcast just to "cover" this, let it be.
Now, Matt Damon for Lex Luthor, on the other hand? I'm listening.
PERSPECTIVE: Honestly, whether or not "Batman vs. Superman" is good is ultimately a negligible thing at this point. They're not gonna stop making superhero movies anytime soon, if this one doesn't work they'll get right eventually. This is good news strictly on the basis that the guy behind "Gone Baby Gone," "The Town" and "Argo" is going to have enough Fuck You Money to make whatever the HELL he wants for the forseeable future. That's why we call these things "tentpoles," kids.
Y'know what's funny? The logic used to be that DC heroes (or, more specifically, anyone from "Superfriends") were well-known/iconic enough to sell themselves, while Marvel's roster would probably need A-list megastars to make mainstream audiences give a shit.
Okay, Internet? Get it out of your system: Bennifer. Gigli. Jersey Girl. Reindeer Games. Armageddon. Ha ha ha. None of that matters. Literally. Affleck is basically a post-larvae actor/director at this point - nothing before "Gone Baby Gone" matters. Ben's the man.
Besides, he wasn't the problem in "Daredevil." If he played Batman/Bruce Wayne in the same basic manner as Daredevil/Matt Murdock he'd be the best one apart from Keaton, Conroy, Bader and Adam West (Fuck you, Adam West was good.)
This doesn't automatically mean the movie is that much closer to not sucking. Not using Christian Bale means this won't totally be the played-out Nolan Batman, yes. Not casting someone appreciably older than Henry Cavill means it can't be that close to "Dark Knight Returns;" but those pernicious influences are still there.
Fun Fact #1: Unless I'm forgetting someone, this makes Ben Affleck the only actor who has ever played Batman AND Superman (look it up.)
Fun Fact #2: This actually isn't a total surprise: Back when Warner Bros. was still committed to "Justice League" coming out opposite "Avengers 2," they offered Affleck the director's chair on that one with the caveat that he also play Batman. Supposedly he said no at the time. One thing changed... I wonder if the other thing has, too?
Poor Henry Cavill. Not only do they think you need Batman's help to make people want to see you as Superman again, they think you need Oscar-Winning-Megastar-Batman.
Honestly? I'm immediately fond of this decision - and not just because it means he might possibly maybe bring some (or all?) of the production of a DC movie or two here to Boston. This guy is a good actor, he can play tough, he has range... but he's also funny and "regular." I'm sure the paycheck on this is big enough that he'd do the part in helium-voice if they asked, but if they let him play Batman as something other than the one-note growling asshole we've been putting up with for the last decade he could really be something special. Enough time has passed since George Clooney - we can have a stable, semi-happy Batman again.
Seriously, though - Ben? Mr. Affleck? Please bring some or all of this production to Boston. The last Gotham City was in fucking Philly for crissakes.
Let's get THIS dull idiocy out of the way: No, Matt Damon would be a shitty Robin. Casey Affleck for Robin, though? That I like. Jennifer Garner would be a not-awful Wonder Woman, but that's not gonna happen. No, Kevin Smith doesn't need to be anywhere near this - he's probably gonna launch another fucking circlejerk podcast just to "cover" this, let it be.
Now, Matt Damon for Lex Luthor, on the other hand? I'm listening.
PERSPECTIVE: Honestly, whether or not "Batman vs. Superman" is good is ultimately a negligible thing at this point. They're not gonna stop making superhero movies anytime soon, if this one doesn't work they'll get right eventually. This is good news strictly on the basis that the guy behind "Gone Baby Gone," "The Town" and "Argo" is going to have enough Fuck You Money to make whatever the HELL he wants for the forseeable future. That's why we call these things "tentpoles," kids.
Y'know what's funny? The logic used to be that DC heroes (or, more specifically, anyone from "Superfriends") were well-known/iconic enough to sell themselves, while Marvel's roster would probably need A-list megastars to make mainstream audiences give a shit.

