= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
knb comments on May 2015 Media Thread - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (51)
The movie wasn't very good, even by Marvel superhero movie standards. Did anyone understand Ultron's motivation? It seems like Ultron's logic was:
Also, I was left wondering about whether Iron Man was going to be financially/criminally liable for the damages Ultron caused.
For what I've understood of the movie!Ultron rationale, having as goal peace-keeping, he devised what he thought was a better way to do this than the Avengers itself: instead of maintaining peace by fighting the enemy of peace, do it by evolving a new kind of human being (the project that eventually phyzvangrq jvgu gur nppvqragny perngvba bs gur Ivfvba) and then killing all the older ones.
Screw with the fact that there's no continuity between the latter and the former... :/
Oh. Thanks. I thought he was just creating a new body for himself.
Bit late, but: IIRC the post-credits scene implies that Ultron was somehow really under Thanos' control, via the Infinity Stone Thanos originally gave to Loki (and/or its corruption/influence via Stark via Wanda Maximoff).
I suppose it might be giving the movie too much credit to argue that Ultron was at no point honestly explaining his plans, but instead saying whatever he expected would confuse and/or demoralize his enemies.
The question of liability is sort of alluded to in the latest movie, Civil War; though the short answer seems to be no.
In the end, the only real answer is always "it's all made up and what you see is what you get".