What?! Paul Bettany to Play The Vision in 'Avengers: Age of Ultron'

February 6, 2014
Source: Variety

Paul Bettany / The Vision

While rumors have swirled that Clark Gregg's character Agent Coulson could end up on The Avengers as The Vision (his fate is now revealed on the clunky ABC series "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.") or that Vin Diesel might play the character from the Marvel comics, we now have an interesting development that shakes up those theories and more. Variety has confirmed a report from The Daily Mail that Paul Bettany (from A Beautiful Mind, Priest) who already has a place in Marvel's film universe as the voice of Tony Stark's artificially intelligent assistant JARVIS, has been cast as The Vision in The Avengers: Age of Ulton.

Yeah, we'll just let that soak in. For those who don't know, according to the Marvel Wiki, The Vision "possesses a number of superhuman powers ultimately derived from his artificial substance and metabolism. The Vision's android body is functioning replica of a human body containing analogues to virtually all human organs, blood, and tissue, composed of an unrevealed synthetic organic-like substance. This substance mimics all the functions of human tissue, but is several times as strong, durable and resilient." But he also has the ability to fire beams of infra-red and microwave radiation, use a hologram force to render himself invisible, fly and much more.

So what does this mean for the story? Well, it likely means that any theories about JARVIS going rogue and turning into Ultron are bogus. After all, they got a little shaky when James Spader was cast as the title villain, so that's not surprising. However, in the comic books, The Vision was an android created by Ultron as a henchman, but he turns on his creator and joins the Avengers instead. This could mean that JARVIS might have something to do with how Ultron creates The Vision, or maybe Bettany just happened to be the best guy for the role. Either way, with this addition and Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, this sequel is going to be out of control. Sound good?

Find more posts: Casting, Development, Marvel, Movie News



I'm into it. Good for Paul.

Quanah on Feb 6, 2014


I love this. This is the perfect excuse to connect Ultron and Vision with Tony Stark (as the film, universe pretends) Stark as we saw in movies created great pieces of technology as hardware. But he already created a flawless A.I. in Jarvis and that's seems the perfect excuse to explore into more of Tony's abilities.

toonfed on Feb 7, 2014


So from Marvel Wiki's description of Vision my guess is that Joss is going to use Agent Coulson's return on 'SHIELD' to set up Vision. We've seen on the show that Coulson went through surgeries and from an x-ray/body scan we know that Something was done to him internally. Since Joss both wrote 'Age of Ultron' as well as came up with Coulson's recovery it would make sense (and further connect the show to the MCU) that the same type of organs used to make Vision would have been experimented on Coulson first. This would also explain why it is taking so long for them to reveal completely how Coulson lives. Likely because they'd like to time it to closer when 'Age of Ultron' hits theaters.

Corey Ragland on Feb 7, 2014


Awesome, the world needs more Bettany.

si1ver on Feb 7, 2014


This is very cool news indeed. I for one LOVE franchises that actively evolve over time. Taking things that were established in early films and paying the off later or growing them into more pivotal roles. The Infinity Gauntlet getting glimpsed in Thor, Thanos showing up mid-credits in The Avengers, The Tesseract being revealed to be an Infinity Stone, JARVIS evolving into The Vision. Great stuff. The worst thing for any franchise is when it lacks 'continuity cohesion' and it just feels like each movie is just introducing a bunch of new stuff, and you evolve to a place where the latest film is very 'divorced' from earlier entries. Pirates of the Caribbean 3 was damn near just as much about new characters as it was about the main characters of the original film.

Chris Groves on Feb 7, 2014


agreed. I hate that Harry Potter-syndrome. It would be amazing if movies were patient and developed their characters correctly. The Spider-Man trilogy almost got it right: first movie he was only mentioned, second movie we see him and he has a very small part in the movie, (then the series went off the rails) SM3 the symbiote attaches to him. It would've been so cool if he started a proper change into the Lizard in the 3rd movie and then in the 4th he's the big baddie.

si1ver on Feb 7, 2014


Good,about time Betanny gets some love from Marvel.

lars on Feb 7, 2014


Not quite sure who The Vision is but Paul Bettany is genius. That guy can do anything.

Rock n Rollllll on Feb 7, 2014


So, the Vision is basically an organic Iron Man? They should call him Meat Man.

TheOct8pus on Feb 7, 2014


Is Paul playing the voice of Vision or the actual character? Cause he doesn't really look the part, not to say Bettany isn't a great actor and a must. (This is where Vin Diesel should've come in)

JBrotsis on Feb 7, 2014


This could be the dumbest comment to date. You think James Spader looks like a 6 foot 5 inch giant robot with a mouth that's open and has radiation pouring out of it? I don't... but I'm glad he's playing the role. If he plays the role it'll be mocap.

Kento on Feb 7, 2014


I know Bettany doesn't have Diesel's muscle mass, but I think the picture attached to this post begs to differ about Bettany's ability to "look the part"...

spencersweeting on Feb 7, 2014


Don't be too caught up in looks. Even though Bettany is lanky, he's extremely fit. He can pull off "android superhero" with far more range than Diesel could. I made another comment about this already that may not have been approved because it included a link, but JoBlo's post on Bettany's casting includes a shot of his character from Priest that proves he can "look the part" just fine.

spencersweeting on Feb 7, 2014


Fantastic. Marvel continues to shine in casting, while DC can't cast any role properly. Perhaps Vision will be Tony Stark's answer to combat Ultron? Or perhaps Ultron will try to corrupt JARVIS, initially succeeds in creating Vision, but then Vision rebels against his creator? I can't wait!

CoosCoos on Feb 7, 2014


Just because Paul Bettany is a great actor, doesnt mean that the movie wont be crap. Robert Downy is phenomenal but Ironman's 1 and 2 were not that great, and part 3 was a complete can full of garbage because not all of the elements of a great superhero movie came together. Marvel only shines when the movies as a whole (great script, great acting, and great direction) are all applied and executed accordingly, which im sorry to say is not very often.

Rock n Rollllll on Feb 7, 2014


I completely disagree with you. I'm guessing you're a DC and "Man of Squeal" fanboy? (As much as I'm a Marvel fanboy.) Marvel Phase 1 was flawless, IMO. Phase 2 is great so far. My only worry is Guardians.

CoosCoos on Feb 7, 2014


I can say that I like the DC's imagination and ideas more when it comes to their characters/superheroes cause to me, DC is not so one-dimensional, but to answer your question, i'm a fan of both and i dont discriminate between one or the other. I'm just stating my own personal facts about most of the "not-so-good" movies Marvel has produced.

Rock n Rollllll on Feb 8, 2014


I would agree DC has the best, most well-known characters with the richest history and best stories, however they only seem to be able to deliver in animated adventures. Justice League and Justice League: Unlimited were amazing shows, my absolute favorites. But in live action DC fails, for me. While the Nolan Batman trilogy was well done from a technical standpoint, I did not find the movie entertaining. They were dark and do not have a re-watchability I prefer in movies. Don't get me started on Man of Steel or Green Lantern. But Marvel Phase 1 movies were all entertaining, re-watchable, and fun. (Not to mention, kept an incredible continuity.) Back in 1960 DC came up with Justice League and Marvel scrambled to copy the idea, launching The Avengers in 1963. The heroes in Avengers were all b-list, whereas Justice League is the best of DC. If you'd asked me in 2007 if Marvel Phase 1 would succeed I would say 'absolutely not'. But here it is 2014, they're a huge success, and now (in a turn of history) DC are the ones scrambling to copy Marvel's ideas. But they're off to a rocky start.

CoosCoos on Feb 8, 2014


"Marvel phase 1 were all entertaining, rewatchable" I'm sorry but i just cant agree with you on that. I find that the majority are disappointing and lacking. My argument is that (IMO) most Marvel movies are either; not acted well, not scripted well, not directed well, and a lot of the time not enough action incorporated, and sometimes all of them together at once, hence the reason why they have had quite a few reboots. People can say what they want about MOS but David said it best "we approached Superman as if it werent a comic book, as if it were real", and thats exactly what they did. Could Superman have been done better?......Perhaps. However there are not too many directors out there that could have done better or would have the balls to try. I love that Chris, David S Goyer, and Zack Snyder all believe in the same thing, and thats bringing these heroes to life. Giving them a real-aesthetic and gritty feel is the way to go to be able to give you some sense of realism. Personally, i loved the same approach Zack took with The Watchmen. He knew that in order to pay justice to the comic, he was going to have to sacrifice a major paycut by delivering to the comic book fanbase and not to the general audience. Why didnt it get a lot of praise? Well because mommy and daddy couldnt take their little 7 year old to go watch it due to the sense of realism with the harsh language, violence, and nudity that was in the film. That is why i respect Zack Snyder on his vision and courage to not deviate from the original plan just to satisfy hollywood's pockets. Marvel (especially now with Disney at the helm) will never do this. Marvel movie producers will always believe in general audience first, fanbase second. I do agree Green Lantern was green garbage, and im not saying all DC movies are perfect, but i do love what most have done with the DC characters.

Rock n Rollllll on Feb 10, 2014


You say: "My argument is that (IMO) most Marvel movies are either; not acted well, not scripted well, not directed well, and a lot of the time not enough action incorporated, and sometimes all of them together at once, hence the reason why they have had quite a few reboots." I think I see the disconnect between our opinions. I think you may be (nay, must be) referring to "Marvel movies" such as Spider-Man, X-Men, and Fantastic Four. While those are "Marvel" movies they are only such in a licensed form, Marvel has no involvement in them, those movies are made by Sony (Spider-Man) and Fox (X-Men and FF). Yes, I would agree the Spider-Man, X-Men, and FF movies have been horrible (except maybe for Spider-Man 2 with Doc Ock). And they have been rebooted quickly because of it (and not improved in the process). The "continuity" in X-Men is laughable. The only good part of FF was Jessica Alba (and not her acting). Poor movies all around. However, I was referring specifically to "Marvel Studios" movies, aka "Marvel Cinematic Universe", which are those in "Phase 1", starting with Iron Man in 2008 (then Incredible Hulk, IM2, Thor, Cap, Avengers), and now continuing in "Phase 2" (with IM3, Thor 2, Cap 2, Guardians, and Avengers 2). Since Phase 1 began, IMO Marvel has been spot on (near flawless, IMO) and there have been no reboots. (Again, my only worry is Guardians this Fall.) While I appreciate the "real-aesthetic and gritty feel" you refer to that Nolan, Snyder, and Goyer bring to their films, I appreciate them for their 'art' value not their 'entertainment' value - while well done, I don't particularly like them (and MOS was horrific). Marvel is going for entertainment (and $$$, let's be real) and I personally like that tone better - the 'popcorn movie' as it were.

CoosCoos on Feb 10, 2014


No, No, I am indeed referring to all movies that are made under the Marvel comic umbrella, whether the rights belong to Marvel or other licenses. Everything you mentioned in Phase 1 i just cant agree with, with the exception of only Cap and Avengers, and Phase 2, well i fear once again i can only agree with Cap and Avengers once again, and thats also depending on the turnout in the future. On a side note, i do like what Marc Webb is doing with the new Spiderman. It appears Marc is paying homage to the comics AND making it very "entertaining" at the same time, which is what a lot of other directors/script writers cant seem to get right. We are just going to have to agree to disagree since i feel that the majority of movies that are created under the Marvel comic book umbrella are just mediocre, if not, garbage. each their own i guess. Great convo! Have a good one, buddy.

Rock n Rollllll on Feb 11, 2014


I have a feeling that Ultron will liberate VISION in part of the film giving him a body and that VISION will turn in the 3rd act.

Kento on Feb 7, 2014


Perhaps its the cinematic trauma of growing up with the old Batman franchise crumbling under the weight of too many additions to the story....but it seems like this Avengers movie is in danger of becoming over indulgent with characters, which will ultimately take away from plot if done poorly. Age of Ultron could = Batman Forever.

UrAllThumb on Feb 9, 2014


Surprised no one is mentioning the fact that in the comics Vision was married to Scarlet Witch. So when they announced her for Avengers 2 I figured Vision was coming too.

Namnoot on Apr 20, 2014

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:

Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:

For only the latest posts - follow this:

Add our posts to your Feedlyclick here

Get all the news sent on Telegram Telegram