10

After watching Avengers: Age Of Ultron, I was wondering whether the motives behind the death towards the end of the movie had anything to do with the fact that Fox owns the rights for X-Men, and already have their own version of the character, portrayed by a different actor?

It seemed a bit odd to me because he is a prominent character in the Marvel universe as can be read in the Wikipedia article for Quicksilver and the Marvel Wiki article for Quicksilver. Additionally, in my opinion, his death did not really bring a significant impact to the movie per se.

I understand that this might not be the case but I can't help to wonder, did Disney have some agreement with Fox that the Quicksilver character would only be brought in for one movie only?

|improve this question
  • 2
    Related: movies.stackexchange.com/q/13512/49 and movies.stackexchange.com/q/33763/49. – Napoleon Wilson♦ May 2 '15 at 11:33
  • His death certainly showed that his character had changed, and will certainly have changed Hawkeye's opinion of him. But I agree with you to a certain extent: there had to be at least one consequence to that whole city-in-the-sky fight (certainly no civvies got killed on-screen that I remember), and Quicksilver was the most obvious red-shirt around. – Neil B Sep 15 '15 at 16:17
14

Never take comic book deaths seriously and since this movie is based on comics they can do the same. Loki, Phil Coulson, Fury and Bucky all came back from death, so why not Quicksilver?

The Inhumans film is coming and Quicksilver has a big relationship with them, (from having an Inhuman wife and child and even being member of them too), so he might get reused there. Resurrection, time travel, reality rapping (Wanda) etc can be various method to revive him.

Now regarding why he got killed - Joss Whedon is famous for killing established cast members - at least this time he killed a non-established cast member. Death are used to give impact in a film and this might be used for same reason. It might not worked for you but that doesn't mean it hasn't worked for others. It can also be used for Wanda's power establishment or her sorrow can open love relationship with Vision in future. As we can already get from the future film slate that the other Avengers cannot be killed because of association with phase 3 films, so why not kill Quicksilver?

For the rights thing, I don't think it has anything to do with rights. Why would Fox allow them to have Quicksilver for one film and not Wanda? Wanda can be more useful in the X-men story than Quicksilver for sure, for stories like House of M or Decimation.

|improve this answer
  • 1
    This is pretty much the type of answer I am looking for. I'll give it a while, to see if anyone else has a a different answer before I accept yours. Thanks again. – ChickenWing24 May 2 '15 at 14:11
  • They can use them as they wish, as they have affiliation with the Avengers. (As long as they don't call them mutants) – user001 Sep 24 '15 at 10:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .