This all seems... horrible.
A+--Greatest Comic Movie Ever!
B---Very Good but could have been better
C---Meh, just okay
D--Very let down; even "Catwoman" was better!
F---Complete Failure; what happened??
This all seems... horrible.
Why are the Avengers against Phase 2? The stakes are high (alien invasion) and SHIELD is being proactive by preparing weapons against them. And yet all the Avengers not already working for SHIELD are resolutely against Phase 2, because they all see it as immoral for various reasons. And yet, when Nick Fury suggests torturing Loki because "the stakes are high", Thor looks pensive and considers it. Loki, the guy he just tried to rescue and got into a fight with Iron Man and Cap over. Why aren't their reactions consistent? "Sure, the stakes are high, but that's still no reason to plan doing something so terrible, I'm opposed to this!" Why are they anti-WMD's, but okay with torture?
The point is, they are still needed when they disband, because SHIELD and the Council still exist, and still mark an ongoing threat of some city getting nuked or some dude getting tortured or some people getting wiretapped. They disband because they obviously don't believe they're needed to combat the Council. Why not?
And here is the point I am getting at with your sequel talk. You said whatever "need[s] to be addressed can be handled in the next movie if the creators see the need to take the narrative there. The narrative in this film didn't require it." How can something both need to be addressed in the next movie, and not need to be addressed in the current one? If something is not important enough even to refer to in a movie, why on earth would you return to it in a sequel?
I think Avengers was a boring movie. It would have been much better if they just got together for no apparent reason and beat the shit out of shadowy council members who wants to nuke NY for no apparent reason.
So, you believe this shadowy anonymous Council is entirely legitimate, that nuking New York City would have been entirely legal, and that the Council's decision to do so would be considered a valid decision by the various governments that back them, that everything they did would have been validated by the system.
You know what, okay. I can't argue with that. I will go along with your beliefs. Questions:
Why do the Avengers not do anything about nearly getting nuked? They don't need to stage a coup! I mentioned Nick Fury as an authority figure who supports the Avengers and opposes the Council, they can ask him to do something on that level. They can speak out against the Council, like you said. They don't. Why not?
How do you feel about the Avengers' opposition to Phase 2, and Thor's unilateral decision to take back the tesseract at the end of the movie?
By letting thor take the tesseract, they thought that they had dealt with Phase 2. No tesseract, no weapons.
Look, i'm with you. It would have been a much better movie if all the movie was about was the avengers taking out those arrogant little council members.
Or immediately, after a terrible and exhausting war to defend new york, they immediately set off and beat them up.
What I am asking about the tesseract is, if you (you in general, not you personally) believe that the Council and SHIELD are legitimate authorities and their actions are all justifiable, how do you feel about the Avengers unilaterally taking the tesseract away from them and shutting down Phase 2 research?
'The marquis. Well, you know, to be honest, he seems a little bit dodgy to me.'
'Mm,' she agreed. 'He's a little bit dodgy in the same way that rats are a little bit covered in fur."
I think that the Council is the Security Council of UN.Let's not forget that SHIELD is(was?) a UN sponsored organisation.
"I am Loki Scar-Lip, Loki Skywalker, Loki Giant's Child, Loki Lie-Smith. I am Loki, who is fire and wit and hate. I am Loki. And I will be under an obligation to no one."
They weren't about to win. It all happened in real time ( didn't feel like it, because it was...a ... movie) but the nuke was launched before BW was in a position to close the portal.
the tesseract wasn't just an unlimited source of power, it was also a portal which could be opened anytime from the other side as explained in the movie. Clearly they didn't have the manpower or weapons to deal with another invasion.. Why not remove it from earth altogether?
And like I've said, you could fit it in the ending, where Nick Fury tells the Council, 'the Avengers were pretty mad about the nuke, I let them know who was behind it.' If the intention is to set this up for a sequel (like you suggested earlier) you'd only need about as much time as the Thanos scene.
The exact moment the nuke was launched is not something the Avengers would know, Black Widow is about to close the portal when Tony Stark calls her up and says, 'wait, wait, not yet I've got this nuke!'
And if you think that the Council is a legitimate ruling body, isn't it their own decision to take that risk? The Council wants to use the tesseract to make weapons to defend itself in case of another invasion, and the tesseract is not the only way that invaders can attack Earth. Why should the Avengers (Thor, really) be able to overrule the decision of the world's governments?