Saw it last night and I am quite happy overall. Certainly is a major change in the status quo of the MCU.
Spoiler:
It wasn't a surprise that Pierce was the bad guy, but I admit I felt like an idiot for not seeing that HYDRA was behind all of it until after their little talk with Commodore 64 Zola. They really worked their way deep into SHIELD.
Falcon was handled well and a good addition to the team.
The fight scenes were well choreographed.
Winter Soldier doesn't pop up to much, even though his name is in the title, but when he does he really demands attention; his fights with Cap are just brutal.
I want Fury's SUV.
I'm not sure how I feel about Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver being the results of HYDRA experiments, but ce la vie.
Okay, I couldn't get to see it today, due to travel issues-I'm going tomorrow night. If I enjoyed the first one (ducks to avoid thrown objects) and also enjoyed Avengers, will I still be happy? Also, please tell me they didn't change who Winter Soldier actually is-I'd be VERY upset by that, as there is seriously no reason to change that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Apparently I'm not going tomorrow due to going with a couple of girls from work. Woe is me.
Ahtman wrote: Stephen Strange? I wonder who that could be.
I saw the film with some freinds of mine who, while they enjoy the films, have basically no knowledge of the comics other than what they leech from me when I read comics next to them.
They were rather freaked out at this point in the film, because I may have started softly squealing in delight. (Strange is my favourite non-mutant character)
The only complaints I have is it was a bit long for the story clocking in at 2 hrs 20 mins.
And the scene on the boat when Cap is essentially letting the French guy hit him, the French guys is supposed to just be some mercenary not a super himself
That and Black Widow should have died when Pierce activated the bio-tags, which were obvious weapons since we already saw Fury easily override lack of security for Cap him self, considering the council weren't going to be moving around a lot once they got there.
But it was a good film and enjoyable
And the Pulp fiction reference was quite a nice nod
To be honest, I don't think it will. It's probably just as likely as them getting him confused with The Flash.
It's probably outside most film punters immediate consciousness that Spiderman, X Men and The Avengers are all the same company. I mean, they'll probably know it if they think about it but I think to the folks who actually make the Marvel films their money, it won't even cross their mind.
Black Widow should have died when Pierce activated the bio-tags
He activated them individually, not all at once. You can see him making separate presses for each person. He didn't zap her right off so he could take her hostage.
I know that, but that doesn't mean making them HYDRA experiments is my favorite alternative. Though I have heard rumors that "miracles", as when Strucker says it is "the age of miracles", will be the stand in term for mutant,but I hope not. I did like Stucker's line that SHIELD/HYDRA were "both sides of the same coin which no longer holds any currency".
Great movie... but almost all of those blows done by Capt would have been death blows in real life. You would have been better taking a bullet from Black Widow and probably had a better chance of living.
Spoiler:
Also: I live in DC! If I ever become unemployed I can apparently get a job as a faceless minion for a giant secret government organization! I am honestly curious where on the Potomac river that base was. It feels like they killed thousands of faceless crazy secret agents. 40 or so guys shooting up fury 3 blocks from the white house? They pushed my disbelief being a Washingtonian
This should have been the secret ending clip:
Also... The mouse for once has to *coughcough* counterfeit stuff
But where did this serum originate from? Since we also know that, in order to create The Winter Soldier, H.Y.D.R.A. injected Bucky Barnes (played by Sebastian Stan) with a similar serum to the one that made Steve Rogers into Captain America, the serum injected into the twins could very well be a variation on that formula and be how Disney addresses that which cannot be named (mutants) in its films moving forward
So Nazi super serum research may have been an 'artificial x gene' serum as part of their research and Disney can basically have them be mutants as long as they don't call them mutants or directly reference the x gene concept. Were their powers innate? was Magento their father? Were they given the powers or just activated by Hydra? feth YOU, I'm Mickey Mouse bitch! Go buy frozen and watch my movies and stop asking questions! They have powers and pointless Nazi science doesn't need explanation.
Compel wrote: To be honest, I don't think it will. It's probably just as likely as them getting him confused with The Flash.
It's probably outside most film punters immediate consciousness that Spiderman, X Men and The Avengers are all the same company. I mean, they'll probably know it if they think about it but I think to the folks who actually make the Marvel films their money, it won't even cross their mind.
I know that, but that doesn't mean making them HYDRA experiments is my favorite alternative. Though I have heard rumors that "miracles", as when Strucker says it is "the age of miracles", will be the stand in term for mutant,but I hope not. I did like Stucker's line that SHIELD/HYDRA were "both sides of the same coin which no longer holds any currency".
To me, its weird, if they are Xmen, how can they use them? Unless they just use "The Twins" then entire time and never call them their respective names.
hotsauceman1 wrote: To me, its weird, if they are Xmen, how can they use them? Unless they just use "The Twins" then entire time and never call them their respective names.
I have a feeling those two ended up in a loophole, as they are core members of both the Xmen and the Avengers. We should also remember that only Quicksilver is in both movies.
hotsauceman1 wrote: At one point, beast was an avenger, everyone was an avenger at one point
As long as the mouse doesn't mention XMEN or the term Mutants and simply fails to actually explain the origins of powers... they can simply be the characters they are with a "you know what they are... don't ask questions" position.
I am rather glad, because the Xmen universe is pretty crappy when smooshed in with the marvel universe... Spiderman is a hero and Mr Fantastic lives in a deeeeeeeeeluxe department in the Skyyyyyyie yahie yahie, because they got powers which mutated them from SCIENCE but the XMEN are discriminated against and hunted?
One of the really great things about Captain America 2 was the story actually holds up to the 'expanded universe' test. We have a real danger which would have probably warranted total mobilization of the world's heroes but due to the current story, Tony Stark is a powerless retired civilian, Thor is 'gone' and The Hulk is still lost in quiet madness. In a world with Xmen or other Marvel stuff, the Major evil scheme could have been foiled by Magneto in literally a second. I feel lots of 'expanded universes' fail in this regard because if the Joker really was going to kill everyone in Gotham city, there is no valid reason to not just call Superman to have supes throw the Joker into the sun. Hell... How did Krypton get so bad and explode in a universe with galactic police like the Green Lanterns? Wasn't Krypton under the protection of one of the lanterns? No one bothered to intervene and prevent genocide? Ring all the kryptonians to Mongo, evacuate the planet and destroy braniac?
Expanded universes ruin series and require you to compartmentalize stories to unrealistic ends or turn your brain off. If anything, the Movie marvel universe has been VERY GOOD about not requiring that. If 'xmen mutants' never appear in the Disney Marvelverse, I will be damn happy. I think a lot of people who were saying "Who dat?' after the credits will agree.
The only casualty of that is Wolverine/Capt crossovers... which would be amazing, especially since I thought the last wolverine movie was great.
hotsauceman1 wrote: At one point, beast was an avenger, everyone was an avenger at one point
The difference being that while lots have been an Avenger at one point or another, those two have been core members, and have been so for a long time; they are not just cameos due to popularity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: How did Krypton get so bad and explode in a universe with galactic police like the Green Lanterns? Wasn't Krypton under the protection of one of the lanterns?
I think the Krytonians were (retconned) as being very isolationist and with their heads up their own asses near the end, which is why no one would listen when Jor-El tried to warn them. They assumed their everlasting position and superiority, which lead to their destruction as a civilization. They probably wouldn't allow the Laterns to interfere or come near them.
Overall I generally agree with your point. A lot of issues, especially in DC, come from trying to make characters of wildly varying types that were not designed to fit together, fit together. Superman is a sci-fi demigod and Batman is a pulp noir detective but they try to find ways to put them together because they are so popular.
hotsauceman1 wrote: At one point, beast was an avenger, everyone was an avenger at one point
One of the really great things about Captain America 2 was the story actually holds up to the 'expanded universe' test. We have a real danger which would have probably warranted total mobilization of the world's heroes but due to the current story, Tony Stark is a powerless retired civilian, Thor is 'gone' and The Hulk is still lost in quiet madness. In a world with Xmen or other Marvel stuff, the Major evil scheme could have been foiled by Magneto in literally a second. I feel lots of 'expanded universes' fail in this regard because if the Joker really was going to kill everyone in Gotham city, there is no valid reason to not just call Superman to have supes throw the Joker into the sun. Hell... How did Krypton get so bad and explode in a universe with galactic police like the Green Lanterns? Wasn't Krypton under the protection of one of the lanterns? No one bothered to intervene and prevent genocide? Ring all the kryptonians to Mongo, evacuate the planet and destroy braniac?
Here is the thing, Even if magneto could have stopped it, it happened so fast. This happened over the course of two days. With no one except Captain knowing. by the time the finale came up, they had a 12 min window for them to act, magneto could have not made it there.
Also, my friend caught up one this
Spoiler:
When the computers where targeting, He saw the name "P. Parker" being targeted
hotsauceman1 wrote: I never understood, if Kryptonians can fly into space and not die, how come they didnt to THAT?
They can't do that on Krytpon. It is because Kal-El is on Earth with a yellow sun instead of a red one that he derives all his powers. On their home planet Kryptonians are the same as humans, only with better tech. Their culture and attitude led to them not really doing much with space travel, though most versions have them having done so in the distant past. That is why Jor-El had to create the ship that would take Clark to Earth, as they didn't have much in the way of space travel vehicles.
Even in the most recent Superman movie the ships they had that went to orbit were fairly limited, which is why initially when Zod et al are freed from the Phantom Zone in the ship in orbit they expect to die from starvation, as the satellite can't travel. It is by converting the phantom zone engine into a drive that they get it to travel. As they warped around they find more parts to make it more space worthy.
Eh, the way I'm going to deal with the whole quicksilver thing is that the Disney Quicksilver and Fox Quicksilver are from different universes in the Marvel Multiverse.
Here is the thing, Even if magneto could have stopped it, it happened so fast. This happened over the course of two days. With no one except Captain knowing. by the time the finale came up, they had a 12 min window for them to act, magneto could have not made it there.
Also, my friend caught up one this
Spoiler:
When the computers where targeting, He saw the name "P. Parker" being targeted
Yeah, I saw that too...
Spoiler:
But it boils down, that let's say Capt failed, and the flying death macguffins headshotted everyone on the east coast... In an Avengersverse, that is a victory! In an expanded marvel universe, where they know of all the various superpowered beings across the planet, it would be a pointless exercise... While it may have had initial success, it then would unify the rest of the world against Hydra, and on a planet with literally hundreds of thousands of mutants, a decent number would be simply immune to the airships, it would inspire chaos and a global mess of uninteresting stories far more than an oppressive regime controlling the population.
Yeah, Magneto wouldn't have prevented it, but there is a high chance he wouldn't have been killed by the initial attack and he could singlehandedly wreck that entire plan. Dozens of other mutants would also have abilities and immunities as well and we would probably see something opposite of the new XMEN movie where Mutants are the saviors of humanity against the horrible Nazis. It would be the plot if Quentin Tarantino directed an xmen movie!
If those types of complications existed on the planet, this plan would have never happened. Hence why the movie is awesome for a contained mutant-free marvel universe... How they plan to approach that considering the new two baddies are traditionally mutants. (and offspring of a notorious mutant, their mother was impregnated with twins in Auschwitz, so it is convenient if Nazis were experimenting on or had cryo frozen specimens from WW2)
It bored me to pieces for the most part. I almost nodded off during the final set piece. I can't call it a bad movie. it just wasn't my cup of tea for a reason I can't quite pinpoint.
I liked the interactions between Cap and Falcon though and would totally watch a buddy-hero movie with those two.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Anyone else feel like, while the first one was a war movie, this was a secret agent movie?
Yep, if you look into what Marvel's planning to do with the MCU, they're trying to make their movies more of genre movies with superheroes in them, rather than superhero movies that follow a formula. The First Avenger was a war movie, The Winter Soldier was more of a political thriller/spy movie, Guardians of the Galaxy is set to be a space opera, and Ant-Man is supposedly going to be a heist film.
Marvel is pushing a lot of boundaries with the MCU, not just in the idea of having a vast, interconnected movie universe for a group of superheroes.
So, I guess it's more a political action/thriller movie along the lines of Bourne Identity, Manchurian Candidate (the one with Denzel), or The Art of War (with Snipes).
djones520 wrote: I enjoyed it. I'm curious about the end credit scene. Where they saying Loki's staff was another one of the cosmic cube things?
I got the impression that they meant that the cosmic cube and Loki's scepter were both weapons that they could utilise rather than they were functionally identical. They also heavily suggest that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch will be used as weapons, probably via the mind control effect of Loki's scepter.
I thought the congressional hearing with Black Widow was a little odd at the end. Even with secrets out in the open she doesn't strike me as someone that would show up to something like that. I think it was mainly to work in the bit where she said that they wouldn't arrest her because they needed them to protect them. I think the purpose of it was that it will be motivation for the government to create Ultron, as a defense system against supers and what not. Of course he is going to go Skynet on them. Just a thought.
I'm actually not at all surprised that they used a slightly modified version of the Ultimates M-word origin. More and more they seem to be drawing from Ultimate verse rather than 616.
I liked this one a lot more than the first Captain film. I think the Captain America character has mostly stumbled through the Marvel Movie Universe but he finally hit his stride with this (on your left).
Honestly though as the movie wound down, I kind of felt a lot like I did at the end of Star Trek: Into Darkness;
Spoiler:
I saw Kirk die and thought, omg, they killed Kirk. They could do amazing things with this. A whole new dynamic for the franchise.
Too bad he's just gonna get back up and be okay in the end.
The movie really was an adaptation of the Civil War storyline, except they changed the players (and made the other side more menacing). I can't really fault them for not killing Steve I guess, cause Marvel didn't have the balls in the comics either. I can dream of the movie that could have been tho; The one where Bucky struggles with killing his best friend and trying to fill his shoes in the world. Could have been awesome.
I suppose I'm just setting myself up for failure when desiring Hollywood to have the balls to risk franchise viability to do something epic... Like they did when they made The Avengers.
On one hand, I thought the movie was great. Good action, characters, great introduction for Sam Wilson, wonderful bit with Zola, and generally very good and certainly world shattering for the MCU.
On the other hand, the show's now Agents of N.O.T.H.I.N.G., and I don't know how they'll sustain that, so much so that I think the events of this movie give Marvel an 'out', allowing them to wrap up the show's plot lines and not bother with a second season.
Sitwell being a HYDRA agent doesn't work for me, and the complete absence of Hawkeye was jarring.
LordofHats wrote: I suppose I'm just setting myself up for failure when desiring Hollywood to have the balls to risk franchise viability to do something epic... Like they did when they made The Avengers.
I must have missed it. What part of The Avengers risked franchise viability to do something epic?
H.B.M.C. wrote: ...I think the events of this movie give Marvel an 'out', allowing them to wrap up the show's plot lines and not bother with a second season.
We can only hope.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sitwell being a HYDRA agent doesn't work for me, and the complete absence of Hawkeye was jarring.
Having Sitwell at all detracted from this movie but I disagree about Hawkeye. This isn't The Avengers and really I wouldn't want to see them, even as cameos. Honestly, I'd have preferred it if they hadn't even used Black Widow.
Why? I was as hard as anyone on this show at the start, but you appear to be dismissing the idea that a show can get better. In fact you sound like you'd even celebrate such a thing.
Breotan wrote: Having Sitwell at all detracted from this movie...
Why?
Breotan wrote: ... but I disagree about Hawkeye. This isn't The Avengers and really I wouldn't want to see them, even as cameos. Honestly, I'd have preferred it if they hadn't even used Black Widow.
Except that's ludicrous. The movie is as much about SHIELD as it is Captain America. It's about Cap's role within SHIELD. To just ignore the major players (like Widow) doesn't make any sense.
Why? I was as hard as anyone on this show at the start, but you appear to be dismissing the idea that a show can get better. In fact you sound like you'd even celebrate such a thing.
Bad handling of an IP affects the IP as a whole. Whedon has some fan favorites, I grant you, but overall his track record is pretty bad. Killing this show as quickly as possible will give Disney/Marvel time to rethink how they want to approach television and (hopefully) give us a better series a year or two from now.
Breotan wrote: Having Sitwell at all detracted from this movie...
Why?
As a character he isn't worth caring about. They could have left him out of the movie entirely and not changed a thing otherwise and it would be the same movie. He's also a plug-in from the television series and nobody gave a rat's ass about him then, either. Seriously, if you're going to make a bridge between the TV show and the movies, use characters that people give a damned about.
Breotan wrote: ... but I disagree about Hawkeye. This isn't The Avengers and really I wouldn't want to see them, even as cameos. Honestly, I'd have preferred it if they hadn't even used Black Widow.
Except that's ludicrous. The movie is as much about SHIELD as it is Captain America. It's about Cap's role within SHIELD. To just ignore the major players (like Widow) doesn't make any sense.
The Avengers is as much a SHIELD thing as Captain America yet except for the name dropping, they ignored Iron Man and the Hulk. I suppose having Hawkeye appear on the boat to gather intel instead of Widow would have been a good way to show both the "minor" Avengers/SHIELD agents while keeping this a Captain America movie. I guess I just dislike the idea of the Falcon having less screen time than Widow. After all, he's more a Captain America character while she is more of a Daredevil/Avenger character.
Breotan wrote: As a character he isn't worth caring about. They could have left him out of the movie entirely and not changed a thing otherwise and it would be the same movie. He's also a plug-in from the television series and nobody gave a rat's ass about him then, either. Seriously, if you're going to make a bridge between the TV show and the movies, use characters that people give a damned about.
Isn't worth caring about? Says who exactly? You?
And Sitwell was in Thor and Avengers (and The Consultant, and Item 47) before he was ever on the TV show.
Breotan wrote: . He's also a plug-in from the television series and nobody gave a rat's ass about him then, either. Seriously, if you're going to make a bridge between the TV show and the movies, use characters that people give a damned about.
I think you're confusing your own opinion for public opinion. Happens all the time.
Being way, way behind in the UK on Agents of SHIELD. And apparently very unobservant in Thor... I had absolutely no idea who Sitwell was and whether he was supposed to be significant.
Compel wrote: Being way, way behind in the UK on Agents of SHIELD. And apparently very unobservant in Thor... I had absolutely no idea who Sitwell was and whether he was supposed to be significant.
This!
Until reading this thread I thought he was a new character for the film.
I don't believe Sitwell was that significant in the comics, either. Now that I think more on it, Soladrin has it right, they should have used Hand instead.
Breotan wrote: . He's also a plug-in from the television series and nobody gave a rat's ass about him then, either. Seriously, if you're going to make a bridge between the TV show and the movies, use characters that people give a damned about.
I think you're confusing your own opinion for public opinion. Happens all the time.
I've no idea what you're talking about and neither do the majority of the public with their own opinions which happen to mirror my own.
I really liked the movie, i'd like to see a timeline of where all the marvel movies and tv shows actually take place as it seems this this movie changes everything for shield which would impact the tv show and other movies
Breotan wrote: I must have missed it. What part of The Avengers risked franchise viability to do something epic?
The entire concept of spending billions of dollars on multiple separate moves that all tied into a single movie with a joined narrative was insanely risky and could have easily gone horribly wrong.
Yeah. Say what you want about the films themselves, but the fact that they exist is a pretty astonishing achievement, especially that when they began they were an independant studio and no on thought they would succeed.
To be honest, Im worried know with guardians of the galaxy. This could make or break the shared universe. A few of the Geeks in the audience thought "Sweet" But I heard alot of "Is that The Avengers? Is it part of it"
hotsauceman1 wrote: To be honest, Im worried know with guardians of the galaxy. This could make or break the shared universe. A few of the Geeks in the audience thought "Sweet" But I heard alot of "Is that The Avengers? Is it part of it"
I think the distinct lack of Iron Man would have told even the most casual Marvel movie fan that it was not the Avengers.
Also we know that Iron Man only rocks out to AC/DC and not Blue Swede....
hotsauceman1 wrote: To be honest, Im worried know with guardians of the galaxy. This could make or break the shared universe. A few of the Geeks in the audience thought "Sweet" But I heard alot of "Is that The Avengers? Is it part of it"
I think the distinct lack of Iron Man would have told even the most casual Marvel movie fan that it was not the Avengers.
Also we know that Iron Man only rocks out to AC/DC and not Blue Swede....
Thanos was part of the avengers, he was the guy at the end of the credits.
Galaxy of the guardians, the green female character is Thanos's daughter.
I suspect this is going to be a movie to expose the movieverse to Thanos for future avengers movie so they literally don't have to exposition him.
hotsauceman1 wrote: To be honest, Im worried know with guardians of the galaxy. This could make or break the shared universe. A few of the Geeks in the audience thought "Sweet" But I heard alot of "Is that The Avengers? Is it part of it"
I wouldn't be that worried about brand recognition. Generally speaking no one knows who the Guardians of the Galaxy are. Marvel are well aware of this (why else do you think the trailer was mostly a roll-call), and will not doubt spent time in the film ensuring we know what's going on.
And cast your mind back to just after Iron Man 2 came out. There's that end teaser with a hammer. Thor is announced, and the question becomes will people accept Thor into this universe. That was a huge risk, and it worked.
ironicsilence wrote: I really liked the movie, i'd like to see a timeline of where all the marvel movies and tv shows actually take place as it seems this this movie changes everything for shield which would impact the tv show and other movies
There's a reason that the episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. lately have been tagged with the "UPRISING" label after the name.
Kanluwen wrote: There's a reason that the episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. lately have been tagged with the "UPRISING" label after the name.
Like that amazing Thor 2 cross-over, where they cleaned up some rubble and then did something unrelated for an hour.
Sorry, but I can't get excited for SHIELD because it's let me down before. I don't think they have the stones to do anything interesting (ie. have Ward be a HYDRA Agent, totally shattering Skye's confidence in the process), and I'm convinced that the whole Clairvoyant thing has nothing to do with Zola/the algorithm/HYDRA and is just a meaningless sideshow.
Kanluwen wrote: There's a reason that the episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. lately have been tagged with the "UPRISING" label after the name.
Like that amazing Thor 2 cross-over, where they cleaned up some rubble and then did something unrelated for an hour.
Sorry, but I can't get excited for SHIELD because it's let me down before. I don't think they have the stones to do anything interesting (ie. have Ward be a HYDRA Agent, totally shattering Skye's confidence in the process), and I'm convinced that the whole Clairvoyant thing has nothing to do with Zola/the algorithm/HYDRA and is just a meaningless sideshow.
I agree that SHIELD definitely has been a big letdown so far. I'm tentative about the changes that we'll see thanks to Winter Soldier, but apparently the Baron Strucker scene was a Joss Whedon easter egg intended to drop hints for SHIELD--notably that all of these little fires that Coulson and his team have been dealing with(the Clairvoyant, Centipede, etc) are those other Hydra organizations that Strucker was willing to sacrifice to keep SHIELD thinking that they were making a real difference.
Thank you, HBMC. Some people in the theater would not shut the hell up during that and I missed the name...I'm more of a DC person when it comes to comics proper, so not hugely familiar with Marvel characters.
The guy talking to him says "Herr Strucker", so we get him rather than pinky pants. Zemo is super evil though. I'd love him to show up in another Cap film and sword-fight Steve.
Hawkeye wasn't in this because he was away on a mission in Europe tracking something (missing people perhaps?) and is most likely the one to find Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver.
I didnt like Hawk Eye as a character in the avengers. He seemed IDK, tertiary. We where suppose to feel sad that he was Lokied but he had not character development before that.
Well I'm only up to date with where the UK episodes of SHIELD but I think it's been picking up of late and the TAHITI episode (the one show last Friday) was one of the best in a while. But then again anything with Bill Paxton in generates awesome points by default.
I'm hopeful that the events in Captain America will really light a fire under the shows backside. Either they will have to go rouge or perhaps they will be at the forefront of the new SHIELD that will grow out of the ashes of the old one.
LuciusAR wrote: Well I'm only up to date with where the UK episodes of SHIELD but I think it's been picking up of late and the TAHITI episode (the one show last Friday) was one of the best in a while. But then again anything with Bill Paxton in generates awesome points by default.
I'm hopeful that the events in Captain America will really light a fire under the shows backside. Either they will have to go rouge or perhaps they will be at the forefront of the new SHIELD that will grow out of the ashes of the old one.
1. I think I've fallen in love with ScarJo/Black Widow.
2. Falcon is awesome, give me more Falcon - USAF Pararescue ftw (and a special thank you to Marvel for continuing to promote the AF as the true badasses they really are)
3. I wish I looked like Chris Evans, what a stud.
4. I wish I was fictional, my life will never be that awesome
5. The movie (sadly) really shouldnt have been called The Winter Soldier... he isn't the primary villain, you cant really even say hes the secondary, he isnt even really relevant or important to the plot, he's merely a convenient sub-plot, but not one that has any real impact on the overall story of the film. You could substitute him for pretty much any generic baddie and things would play out more or less the same.
6. Going off of that, I'm a bit confused that a Soviet asset somehow become a HYDRA agent? Aren't they nazis???
7. Definitely a post-9/11 film
8. Love the character development done with Nick, Cap, and Black Widow, I feel like this is the first time you could really relate to Black Widow (in the films) as something more than a hot assassin in a body suit, Nick has a bit more depth to him than just being the SHIELD puppetmaster, and Cap was presented as something other than a boy scout
9. Going off of that, Nick Fury is a total hypocrite, he was fine with Project Insight right up to the point that it turned out to be a HYDRA plot, even though they had the same goals...
10. And a special thanks to Marvel for their shoutout to NJ in the film, lol.
6. Going off of that, I'm a bit confused that a Soviet asset somehow become a HYDRA agent? Aren't they nazis???
From what I gathered Bucky was experimented on by Zola in the HYDRA camp near Anzio in the first film which is where the groundwork for him becoming another Super Soldier was carried out, but CA bust him out before the work could be completed. After he was ‘killed’ later on the Russians discovered his body and presumably picked up where Zola left off.
How he got to HYDRA isn’t clear but if HYDRA had infiltrated Shield it’s also plausible that they could have infiltrated the KGB as well. HYDRA where never ideologically allied to National Socialism, it’s was a just a means to an end. They probably had agents in every major government.
After he was ‘killed’ later on the Russians discovered his body and presumably picked up where Zola left off.
Presumably, if Hydra infiltrated early shield via Operation Paperclip, then they also infiltrated the Soviet Union. The Winter Soldier no doubt became a prime Soviet agent during the cold war while secretly serving Hydra's interests on that front.
Kanluwen wrote: Mmm, yeah that must have been right when the person wouldn't shut up...
I mean really who brings a two year old to see Captain America?
The only possible answer after watching this movie is...a..HYDRA agent? That explains everything!
Still better than everyone being Skrulls.
True, with Skrulls everything goes out the window: age, gender, nipple location. Not exactly something you want to see after waking up expecting to see your wife in bed and instead of her there's a naked male skrull rubbing his thyroid glands while staring at you. *shudders*
chaos0xomega wrote: 9. Going off of that, Nick Fury is a total hypocrite, he was fine with Project Insight right up to the point that it turned out to be a HYDRA plot, even though they had the same goals...
I think he was ok with it before he knew it was going to preemptively lay waste to millions of civilians; he hadn't grasped the full extent of what they were to do.
Nick Fury is a guy who thinks he can solve the world's problems and that he's the only one able to handle it. He was cool with the idea when he thought he was in control, convinced he could control it and stay on the right side of things.
chaos0xomega wrote: 9. Going off of that, Nick Fury is a total hypocrite, he was fine with Project Insight right up to the point that it turned out to be a HYDRA plot, even though they had the same goals...
I think he was ok with it before he knew it was going to preemptively lay waste to millions of civilians; he hadn't grasped the full extent of what they were to do.
This. To Fury, there's a difference to pre-emptively killing, say, known Al-Qaeda operatives and killing millions of people because some programs says that they may be a threat someday in the possible future.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe he was in the elevator with Cap when he explained to him what Project Insight was intended to do (which was to pre-emptively engage potential future threats, Cap at one point says something to the effect of "So now we're assuming their guilty before they even do anything" or something to that effect, and Nick defends the program. Sure HYDRA might have gone further with it (offing 20 million) than he intended to (Offing 4 million <- arbitrary number). Does it really make a difference how many people they intended to kill? It was the same goal and same methodology either way.
IIRC Fury didn't have the algorithm it was created entirely by Zola, who they were going to whack I assumed was going off US intelligence, ie they know person X has recently started attending Al Qaeda training camps and intends to blow up a market square within the next week, Project insight would then 'neutralise' him before he could enact his plan.
It's still some messed up gak and pretty much the set up for Fortress America
I just saw the movie last night and I really enjoyed it. It was a huge improvement over the original movie IMO. Great fight scenes and a great story since it touches upon Captain America's background and how he's still fighting the same battle 70 years in the future.
If anyone can answer this question for me I'd appreciate it.
Why did they want to kill 20 million people? I wasn't able to understand the explanation why.
Basically the argument was that the algorithm had determined there were approximately 20 million people who fit the profile of someone who could threaten HYDRA and their goal of bringing peace or freedom to the world or whatever it was they were trying to push. Their solution was to eliminate all these people so that they could accomplish their goals.
chaos0xomega wrote: Basically the argument was that the algorithm had determined there were approximately 20 million people who fit the profile of someone who could threaten HYDRA and their goal of bringing peace or freedom to the world or whatever it was they were trying to push. Their solution was to eliminate all these people so that they could accomplish their goals.
Oh ok. That makes more sense to me. That's why it target Tony Stark and the rest of the Avengers essentially. Got it! I knew it was something that made some sense.
chaos0xomega wrote: 5. The movie (sadly) really shouldnt have been called The Winter Soldier... he isn't the primary villain, you cant really even say hes the secondary, he isnt even really relevant or important to the plot, he's merely a convenient sub-plot, but not one that has any real impact on the overall story of the film. You could substitute him for pretty much any generic baddie and things would play out more or less the same.
"The Winter Soldier" subtitle was a red herring to keep the HYDRA-has-taken-over-S.H.I.E.L.D plot twist a secret.
7. Definitely a post-9/11 film
I'm looking forward to a "post-post-9/11" everything.
I just saw it and freaking loved this movie. The political overtones were well done and somewhat ballsy for Hollywood. (any criticising of the Obama administration is ballsy in Hollywood.) The action was fast and surprisingly brutal.
Nice hat tip to Pulp Fiction on Fury's headstone. Also I was surprised to see Loki's staff in HYDRA's possession in the end credit scene. I thought Thor would've taken that back to Asgard with Loki at the end of The Avengers.
Zathras wrote: Nice hat tip to Pulp Fiction on Fury's headstone. Also I was surprised to see Loki's staff in HYDRA's possession in the end credit scene. I thought Thor would've taken that back to Asgard with Loki at the end of The Avengers.
He would have, but you see, that would require common sense, and as we all know;
Such power is clearly not on Thor's DM approved character sheet
MWHistorian wrote: I just saw it and freaking loved this movie. The political overtones were well done and somewhat ballsy for Hollywood. (any criticising of the Obama administration is ballsy in Hollywood.) The action was fast and surprisingly brutal.
I don’t know about that. I can think of multiple Hollywood films that have criticized the ‘war on terror’ and the methods used by the secret services to wage it. I’m not sure where this idea that CA is groundbreaking in this regard have come from.
Is it becuase this film has come out under the Obama administration as opposed to others which came out under Bush?
LuciusAR wrote: I don’t know about that. I can think of multiple Hollywood films that have criticized the ‘war on terror’ and the methods used by the secret services to wage it. I’m not sure where this idea that CA is groundbreaking in this regard have come from.
Is it becuase this film has come out under the Obama administration as opposed to others which came out under Bush?
I'm guessing no-one saw Transformers II, which wasn't exactly subtle in its political commentary.
Mind you, I think the whole idea that Hollywood makes liberal films is bizarre. They make stuff that makes money. And that means making loads of action movies, almost all of which have had themes and assumptions that rest very easily with a conservative worldview.
MWHistorian wrote: I just saw it and freaking loved this movie. The political overtones were well done and somewhat ballsy for Hollywood. (any criticising of the Obama administration is ballsy in Hollywood.) The action was fast and surprisingly brutal.
I don’t know about that. I can think of multiple Hollywood films that have criticized the ‘war on terror’ and the methods used by the secret services to wage it. I’m not sure where this idea that CA is groundbreaking in this regard have come from.
Is it because this film has come out under the Obama administration as opposed to others which came out under Bush?
More that it criticized an Obama policy of drone strikes and such. The movies critical of Bush had a different tone to their message and were more anti-war/anti-occupation/anti-imperialism in nature and often implied corruption in the administration.
Is it because this film has come out under the Obama administration as opposed to others which came out under Bush?More that it criticized an Obama policy of drone strikes and such. The movies critical of Bush had a different tone to their message and were more anti-war/anti-occupation/anti-imperialism in nature and often implied corruption in the administration.
Thats an interesting point. Is the use of drone strikes something that has only come about under Obama administration? I was under the assumption that they had been used for some time, though perhaps their use has been stepped up under the Democrats as they where a seen as a good alternative to boots on the ground and bodies coming home in bags.
I don’t think I’ve seen much criticism of Drone warfare used against foreign targets from Conservatives. In fact I’ve read a number of Conservatives who’ve praised their use against terrorists. Most of the opposition to drones previously came from Liberals.
The change seems to have been when there was talk of the potential use of drones domestically and the emergence of ‘kill lists’ that contained US citizens outside of combat zones. This seems to have brought together the Liberal Left and Libertarian Right in condemnation of drone warfare.
One of things about this films that’s so interesting is that it’s gained positive reviews from both Left and Right wing news sites and both seem utterly convinced the film is on their side.
LuciusAR wrote: One of things about this films that’s so interesting is that it’s gained positive reviews from both Left and Right wing news sites and both seem utterly convinced the film is on their side.
That's because contrary to fantasy, Hollywood isn't libral. Hollywood is greedy. They strive to make broad appeal films and that means they try to make movies that will appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. The Lego movie was the same way. Both sides argued it was in agreement with them (or against them) for different reasons. It's why there's an offhanded line about climate change in Pacific Rim. It's why there's a romance sub-plot shoe horned into every movie. It's why films often cater to lowest common denominator. This is the kind of goldmine Hollywood wants, a movie just about anyone can convince themselves is in line with their political/personal views.
Contrary to what people think, most movies are not made by a person who wanted to make a movie they're made by a panel of producers in an office who decide what movie will make them money. Then they hire someone to write the script based on their notes, someone else to direct, and some other guys to put their pretty faces in front of the camera (which is how the awesome concept of Nottingham became the bland Gladiator Sequel that is Robin Hood).
And then sometimes you get films like, say, the new Robocop, or Avatar - films that bash their message into your head in the most unsubtle ways possible.
chaos0xomega wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe he was in the elevator with Cap when he explained to him what Project Insight was intended to do (which was to pre-emptively engage potential future threats, Cap at one point says something to the effect of "So now we're assuming their guilty before they even do anything" or something to that effect, and Nick defends the program. Sure HYDRA might have gone further with it (offing 20 million) than he intended to (Offing 4 million <- arbitrary number). Does it really make a difference how many people they intended to kill? It was the same goal and same methodology either way.
Captain America "I thought the punishment came after the crime?"
Honestly, people ask "Why did they remake robocop, the original will always be better" and I am reminded that for a area that pushes our so much media, people have nearly no idea how Hollywood is actually run. Robocop was remade for two bigs reasons; because someone thought it would be a money making idea, and because it's not that hard to adapt Robocop's plot to cater to a very big issue in contemporary politics. Understandably, the movie apparently completely missed the satire fest that is the original Robocop but I'm failry certain that most of the people running Hollywood don't watch the drivel they shill out every year and are incapable of picking up on any theme that isn't placed on the front of a very large hammer and bashed into their face over and over
Avatar is an oddball, because James Cameron is one of the few people who can walk up to Hollywood and dictate to the producers how things are going to be, which tends to happen when you've made a half dozen films that broke box office records.
chaos0xomega wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe he was in the elevator with Cap when he explained to him what Project Insight was intended to do (which was to pre-emptively engage potential future threats, Cap at one point says something to the effect of "So now we're assuming their guilty before they even do anything" or something to that effect, and Nick defends the program. Sure HYDRA might have gone further with it (offing 20 million) than he intended to (Offing 4 million <- arbitrary number). Does it really make a difference how many people they intended to kill? It was the same goal and same methodology either way.
Captain America "I thought the punishment came after the crime?"
YES! There we go, thank you, I knew it was more eloquent than I put it.
It will be nice if at least one of the people on the team is a HYDRA member instead of copping out and having it be the only unblemished area of SHIELD. Not holding my breath though.
Ahtman wrote: It will be nice if at least one of the people on the team is a HYDRA member instead of copping out and having it be the only unblemished area of SHIELD. Not holding my breath though.
The episode description on my DVR specifically says that "they find that one of their number is a traitor"...and the name of the episode is "Turn, Turn, Turn...".
If they don't actually have a traitor with all that? They'll have been silly.
One thing I noticed though is that the way the "teaser" for this episode was, it seems to not be set in the aftermath of Winter Soldier(like "The Well" episode was set after Thor 2: The Dark World), but rather it is set during the events of Winter Soldier.
Okay, this is pretty sick. The check list Cap had in the opening of the movie? It's different in different countries!
US
I Love Lucy (TV show)
Moon Landing
Berlin Wall up + down
Steve Jobs (Apple)
Disco
Thai Food
Star Wars/Trek
Nirvana (band)
Rocky (Rocky II?)
Troubleman (soundtrack)
UK
TV Show – Sherlock
Moon Landing
The Beatles
World Cup Final (1966)
Sean Connery
Thai Food
Star Wars/Trek
Nirvana (band)
Rocky (Rocky II?)
Troubleman (soundtrack)
LordofHats wrote: Okay, this is pretty sick. The check list Cap had in the opening of the movie? It's different in different countries!
US
I Love Lucy (TV show)
Moon Landing
Berlin Wall up + down
Steve Jobs (Apple)
Disco
Thai Food
Star Wars/Trek
Nirvana (band)
Rocky (Rocky II?)
Troubleman (soundtrack)
UK
TV Show – Sherlock
Moon Landing
The Beatles
World Cup Final (1966)
Sean Connery
Thai Food
Star Wars/Trek
Nirvana (band)
Rocky (Rocky II?)
Troubleman (soundtrack)
It would be better if he were Captain New Jersey, but I digress.
Its part of localization, the topics they swapped out for are theoretically big enough deals in those countries that they are assumed to be common knowledge type deals, its just an attempt to make the character more relatable to audiences and show that he's out of touch with the times. It loses some of its impact if the audience itself is unfamiliar with half the items on that list.
chaos0xomega wrote: It would be better if he were Captain New Jersey, but I digress.
Its part of localization, the topics they swapped out for are theoretically big enough deals in those countries that they are assumed to be common knowledge type deals, its just an attempt to make the character more relatable to audiences and show that he's out of touch with the times. It loses some of its impact if the audience itself is unfamiliar with half the items on that list.
Yeah, but much of the US list is more relatable to people 10-30 years older than Rogers is biologically(he's still mid 20's or so). If he wants to catch up, Disco, I love Lucy, and Rocky are hardly relevant to the people in his actual age range. I understand he's just writing down suggestions from other people, but he states later he knows how to use the internet, why is this list not finished yet and moved on to more relevant topics?
Hell, if I asked a bunch of current military guys(not a stretch, they're the only friends I have around these days), like his strike team buddies, what should I should look into that I missed, it wouldn't be anywhere close to that list. Are Fury and Stark the only people he knows?
Ahtman wrote: It will be nice if at least one of the people on the team is a HYDRA member instead of copping out and having it be the only unblemished area of SHIELD. Not holding my breath though.
If the show had any balls, it'd be Ward who's the Hydra plant. But I doubt the show will. The Clairvoyant won't be anything to do with Armin Zola/the algorithm/Hydra but instead just be one of the reoccurring people they've introduced so far (my money's on Garrett), and the show will continue to skirt the edges of the MCU rather than being part of it.
I want to be wrong more than anything, but I don't think I am.
Ahtman wrote: It will be nice if at least one of the people on the team is a HYDRA member instead of copping out and having it be the only unblemished area of SHIELD. Not holding my breath though.
The episode description on my DVR specifically says that "they find that one of their number is a traitor"...and the name of the episode is "Turn, Turn, Turn...".
If they don't actually have a traitor with all that? They'll have been silly.
The other possibility, which to me will still fall under the writers being giant wusses, would be if it were someone completely tangential to the main group. It needs to be one of the core team members.
Surely, if the episode is called Turn, Turn, Turn. It'll be someone on the team doing a triple cross, probably working directly under Fury's orders. That way, cast doesn't change, but we get a bunch of drama with the cast feeling betrayed and all that jazz.
Good movie. Some of the best fight scenes of the Marvel Movie Universe. They just completely captured the way Cap fights perfectly. The plot is actually a bit overrated but still one of the best Marvel Movies to date.
I mean, he's Captain America. Not Captain UK, Captain Germany, Captain Australia, Captain France, etc...
The list of each country mostly references popular persons/events/media that is relevant to the target audience and a set of American reference so well known just about anyone will be familiar (Star Wars/Trek appears on all the lists). A neat way for them to expand the appeal of the character beyond just being American to being more worldly.
And as I've ranted, Hollywood wants money. What better way to appeal to an audience than to reference things that matter to them? Like the fall of the Berlin Wall or the first Korean to win an Olympic medal?
But in any case, only Aussies saw the Australian version of that list. Where were the Meat Pies? AFL? Ashes? Things that resonate with Australians rather than a cheesy TV show that more people these days have only heard of in passing than have actually seen.
Well, The Ashes have been around for like 130 years, assuming that he spent any time with an Aussie, or an Englishman during the war, he'd know about it.
I saw it last night. I'm a big Cap fan going way back, and a huge fan of Brubaker's run on the comics (which introduced the Winter Soldier). I thought the first film was a real missed opportunity for Marvel considering the great source material, so I was interested to see how the sequel shaped up.
Overall I thought it was a good film...probably the strongest all-around Marvel film to date. It wasn't really that complicated or nuanced as "political thrillers" go. It still had bad guys twirling their mustaches planning to kill millions of people, muah ha ha, and kind of a simplistic set piece thing at the end. But it reached a little higher than the other Marvel films, which can almost universally be described as fun, but by-the-book and very, very safe. I liked it, and thought it captured the Brubaker comics pretty well. Sebastian Stan looked like he walked right off the pages of the comic, and they nicely captured what a tragic, messed-up bastard Bucky is.
I think a couple of the female roles were slightly troublesome for me. Don't get me wrong -- Evans and Johanssen showed solid, flirty chemistry, and the characters contrasted nicely with their differing world views. It worked.
HOWEVER, that role -- the kick-ass, world-weary secret agent, foil for Steve, and love interest -- should be Sharon Carter. Natasha filling that role would be fine, except that they ALSO introduced Sharon in the movie and then proceeded to give THAT character short shrift.
I suppose that Natasha's presence kinda bridged the gap back to the Avengers (and I think the more casual fans have treated this movie as a Avengers sequel of sorts based on the box office). And ScarJo's name is bigger than Chris Evans when you're worried about the posters and marquees. There are plenty of reasons why it made sense to basically use Natasha as a Sharon stand-in. But as a Cap purist who appreciates some of the little things they got right, I thought that was a bigger thing that they got wrong. Sharon is Steve's Lois Lane.
Fight sequences were very good...really got Cap-style action down IMO. Cap's visuals and action work a lot better in his own movie than alongside Thor, Iron Man, Hulk, etc. Even Whedon couldn't figure out how to make that work like it does in comic panels. So it was great to see Cap getting to be Cap and not being overshadowed by thunder gods and green monsters in this one.
I don't think Natasha becomes Cap's romantic interest, the movie made it clear that their relationship is very much 'complicated', and lore wise she and Hawkeye/Winter Soldier are supposed to be a 'thing'... also Daredevil, Spiderman, and I think Hercules...
In any case, complex intertwined romances (like say... a love pentagon consisting of Cap, Black Widow, Sharon Carter, Hawkeye, and Winter Soldier) draws in audiences more and creates more drama/tension, so I expect this is a very conscious choice by Marvel/Disney in the direction they're taking.
Oh, I'm not saying that Steve and Natasha are headed for romance. But basically everything Natasha is and does in the movie IS Sharon Carter. It's Natasha playing the role of Sharon Carter. And then you still have Sharon shoehorned in without any real enhancement to the story.
It actually makes me wonder if that role was originally written to be Sharon, but Marvel felt they needed another name actor (and maybe a clearer link to the Avengers) to ensure they got the bank they were looking for. So Sharon because Natasha, and Sharon got written in for potential future use in Cap 3. I think that's a waste of a great character and a very important person in the Cap mythos.
Most people watching this film won't care...I fully admit that. But as a long time Cap fan, that particular point doesn't sit well. I really liked it overall.
I suppose I can see your point, I didn't even realize that it was Sharon Carter til after the movie was over, she just kinda blended into the background... which is kinda how I felt about Black Widow in all her previous films as well lol, so there is still some hope.
Maybe it's just seeing it in the cinema(I bloody hate watching films in the cinema, some berk always has to bring in crisps/nachos, and idiots keep getting up every ten minutes to go to the bathroom, only reason I bothered is so Agents of SHIELD wouldn't spoiler the plot for me), but I didn't enjoy Winter Soldier nearly as much as the first Cap movie.
Spoiler:
Someone's already mentioned the whole thing about Fury being cool-beans with Insight right up until it became known as a HYDRA scheme, and that was jarring for me as well. They can't seem to decide if they want the audience to see Fury as a "shades of grey" antihero or just a straight up good-guy.
Bucky was done really well, I just wish there was more of him; given the run time, they could easily have cut some of the pointless stuff with "nameless bloke who leads the Strike Team" to give the Winter Soldier even just a couple of extra scenes.
Zola's appearance was actually my favourite bit, although I found it a bit weird he was suddenly all "Hail HYDRA!" and willing to die for the cause etc, the first film seemed to present him much more as your normal mad scientist who worked for HYDRA only because they were nutty enough to give him free reign to experiment, rather than because he was a true believer. Regardless he's a fun character, hopefully the whole "origin point" thing was some kind of scheme on his part to free himself from that bunker, and he snuck out on the super-USB-stick or similar.
Yodhrin wrote: Maybe it's just seeing it in the cinema(I bloody hate watching films in the cinema, some berk always has to bring in crisps/nachos, and idiots keep getting up every ten minutes to go to the bathroom, only reason I bothered is so Agents of SHIELD wouldn't spoiler the plot for me), but I didn't enjoy Winter Soldier nearly as much as the first Cap movie.
Spoiler:
Someone's already mentioned the whole thing about Fury being cool-beans with Insight right up until it became known as a HYDRA scheme, and that was jarring for me as well. They can't seem to decide if they want the audience to see Fury as a "shades of grey" antihero or just a straight up good-guy.
Bucky was done really well, I just wish there was more of him; given the run time, they could easily have cut some of the pointless stuff with "nameless bloke who leads the Strike Team" to give the Winter Soldier even just a couple of extra scenes.
Zola's appearance was actually my favourite bit, although I found it a bit weird he was suddenly all "Hail HYDRA!" and willing to die for the cause etc, the first film seemed to present him much more as your normal mad scientist who worked for HYDRA only because they were nutty enough to give him free reign to experiment, rather than because he was a true believer. Regardless he's a fun character, hopefully the whole "origin point" thing was some kind of scheme on his part to free himself from that bunker, and he snuck out on the super-USB-stick or similar.
Spoiler:
That would be my guess as to what happens, he's data, so he can't be 'killed' unless everything is destroyed, and given that we could fit all the tape reels in that room onto a USB anyway, its not out of the question.
This isn't 616, or Ultimate for that matter, none of this should happen; some things will be the same, some will be different, and some will be similar. I don't think it was written for Sharon and was always intended to use elements of her role from the comic for Natasha because the audience has a history with the character, like the character, and gives the character within the MCU more depth. Sharon Carter was there to set up possible future storylines, but wasn't really needed yet.
Plus, Black Widow seemed to clearly know who 'Agent 13' really is. Throughout the entire film she was pretty much saying. "Ask her out. Ask her out. Do it. Ask her out."
If anything, it was more a younger brother/ older-sister thing with Cap and Widow. I thought it was done particularly well.
I'm inclined to agree with Compel, but in regards to the brother/sister thing:
There is definitely an on-screen evolution between the two characters, at the start of the movie we see Black Widow discussing Caps personal life as if they are friends, except we know they aren't because she still prioritizes her mission above their friendship as we discover on board the ship. As the movie progresses we see she begins to question her ways and her job, wondering if her life is a lie, and she breaks down the wall that exists between her and Cap (really, between her and anyone we've seen on screen thus far, excepting Hawkeye, who we never really see make any sort of advance towards her, if anything he sees her as the little sister) and letting him into her personal life, they share a moment of vulnerability in the car, she asks if he's kissed anyone other than her since the 40s, she asks him who she wants him to be (hes a boy scout and replies 'A friend' and we can see just a hint of disappointment in her face), they share another moment at Falcons place (until he interrupts), we see them again both vulnerable, both dressed down, discussing whether or not Cap really trusts her, in a round about and indirect way questioning if theres anything there, Cap replies truthfully ("I do now") and we see emotional response from her which is a bit hard to discern, but looks like its surprise and relief.
The rest of the film, we see her back to the whole ("You should date so-and-so") routine at inappropriate times (rooftop, cemetery), basically just to kind of break tension and fill the silence with something. Natasha is seductive and manipulative and knows how to manipulate others emotions, but she doesn't necessarily know how to control or handle her own (short of outright suppressing them), so she's dealing with it by externally rationalizing and projecting onto Cap. At the end of the film, we can tell that neither her nor Cap really want to part ways because they've formed a bond, but the situation necessitates it. We can see she desires something more, she goes to kiss him, but only kisses his cheek, we see a slight hint of disappointment and confusion from Cap, and a bit of disappointment from her as well, but that kiss indicates affection, lots of it, more than most people will ever see from Black Widow, and about as much as she herself is comfortable (or capable) of openly expressing. It's also a sort of promise, a 'I'll see you again, stay safe." sort of thing.
On top of that, we know Natasha is a superspy, and is very good at reading people and situations and finding whatever information she needs to meet her purposes, there is no reason for her to ask Cap if he's called someone or gone out with someone, or what he thinks of someone, because she can figure it out just by standing in the same room as them (or tapping phones, hacking computers,etc). Her questioning him about those things is more psychological on her end, shes trying to get into his personal life to find out more about him, figure out what he's interested in, possibly manipulate the situation to her advantage, etc. but to also deflect her own feelings for him and throw him off her trail. Its something that many younger women do actually, I've been through it myself a couple times.
It's also important to note, that both Cap and Black Widow are 'outsiders', and also both polar opposites. Captain is a relic from 60+ years prior, a man out of his time and learning to adjust to a world very different from the one he was familiar with, with little in the way of friends or family to call on. Natasha has no true friends or family to speak of, excepting Hawkeye (who like Cap is also a loner, and also a bit of an idealist/humanist, though in a different sense and for different reasons), and though she isn't (technically?) superpowered, she does exist at a 'higher state' than the average human. The two of them are both effectively out of place, but can find that 'place' with one another since they have common ground (that few other people share) and are both looking for a place to fit in.
Going off of that, Black Widow is also a realist, she knows that Cap and her lead very similar, but incompatabile lifestyles, she knows that she isn't really comfortable (or perhaps even capable)being that sort of vulnerable, and she believes that she would hurt Cap (who she obviously very much cares about) if anything were to occur. Look who she keeps suggesting to Cap, the girl from finance/accounting/logistics/what have you. All normal people, leading relatively normal, uncomplicated lives. The only real exception to this, and the girl Black Widow always comes back to, is Sharon Carter/Agent 13/the Nurse neighbor girl: a field agent, a spy... a lesser spy, without many of the significant issues inherent to the Black Widow character, a more normal Black Widow if you will... someone with family, relationships, a stronger self-identity, a more stable lifestyle... the kind of girl Natasha suggests she wants to be at several points during the film, the kind of girl that she thinks Cap would want to be with, a 'safe' girl that won't hurt him or break his trust like she has.
Finally, its important to remember that Black Widow is a femme fatale, she knows it, she believes it, and this puts her at odds and in conflict with herself, she cannot attain that which she desires, because to do so would destroy what she desires, because that is what always happened in the past, and that is what she believes will always happen to her in the future, which means that for her to end up with Cap, in her mind, would mean an inevitable end to her and Cap, a sacrifice she wouldn't be willing to make provided she has real feelings for him.
This isn't 616, or Ultimate for that matter, none of this should happen; some things will be the same, some will be different, and some will be similar. I don't think it was written for Sharon and was always intended to use elements of her role from the comic for Natasha because the audience has a history with the character, like the character, and gives the character within the MCU more depth. Sharon Carter was there to set up possible future storylines, but wasn't really needed yet.
Clearly box office is obviously driving that decision. And certainly it's great to have another chance to appreciate Johanssen's assets. But it's like a Spidey movie in which Peter spends the entire movie flirting and superheroing with Elektra, while Black Cat appears and gets a few unimportant scenes. Only Sharon is more important to Steve's story than Felicia ever was to Peter's. Still, Spidey fans would find that odd, right? Same thing here. It's a missed opportunity.
There's only one more Cap movie planned, and rumors are plentiful that they'll kill or retire him (since Evans' deal will be up and he doesn't sound interested in continuing). They can certainly follow the Brubaker formula from the comics for what happens next. So they're running out of time to do anything with Agent 13, unless they rush Steve and Sharon together at the end of the next one so they can live, retire, and hang out at cafes with Bruce and Selina. *shrug*
Regarding a certain villain..
Spoiler:
Maybe Zola found it easier to fully embrace Hydra after the maniac with the scarlet head was out of the picture.
It's going to be interesting when the current crop "super heros" all are gone. Downey is supposedly only in for the Avengers 2 & 3 that this point while Evans and Hemsworth have both said their out when their contract is up which means they'll also only be in for Avengers 2 & 3 I believe. Which means at that point we're done with the actors who helped make the universer possible.
But on topic I loved Winter Soldier. Saw it buddies late at Adepticon. Had a blast. Probably tied with (if not exceeding) Thor 2 as my favorite marvel movie so far.
Yeah, they supposedly have films planned out to 2025? But starring who? LOL.
Seeing the Guardians of the Galaxy trailer really hammered home what a turning point it could be for the Marvel studio. Even some superhero fans aren't familiar with that team, so the movie's really going to need great word of mouth. The trailer seems to get some quizzical reactions from casual moviegoers.
Anyway, pull that one off and the studio will probably feel like the sky's the limit. Should it bomb or just kinda do lukewarm business, the studio might pull back and stay conservative (which it largely has been to this point).
gorgon wrote: But it's like a Spidey movie in which Peter spends the entire movie flirting and superheroing with Elektra, while Black Cat appears and gets a few unimportant scenes. Only Sharon is more important to Steve's story than Felicia ever was to Peter's. Still, Spidey fans would find that odd, right? Same thing here. It's a missed opportunity.
Forgoing that I don't find the comparison apt at all*, all of that is based on the 616 universe and ignores that the MCU is it's own beast, and complaining that something different is, well, different, is a bit spurious. I'm a fan of the comic as well but I have had no issues separating the comics from the films, and appreciate that it isn't a straight up transliteration. So far Marvel Studios have been doing a good balancing act of fidelity to the source material while forging their own path.
*Electro is a through and through villain, and since Spider-man has not been shown to be even bisexual the fact he is a man also is good indicator that he might not be interested. Black Widow is neither, and in the MCU isn't even as much of an unknown quantity as she is in the comics. Now if you compared Betty Brant and Black Cat that might have been a bit more accurate, or Gwen Stacy and Black Cat.
I'm hoping Guardians does really well. I'd like to see more of the Space Epic/Opera style comics get movies, especially since Green Lantern's results kinda nixed us ever getting a good War of Light series of movies. I'm much more a Space comic fan than Super Heroes.
I kinda wish Hasbro would do their own version of the DC Direct animations,too. I'd love a series of ID More Than Meets The Eye toons...
gorgon wrote: But it's like a Spidey movie in which Peter spends the entire movie flirting and superheroing with Elektra, while Black Cat appears and gets a few unimportant scenes. Only Sharon is more important to Steve's story than Felicia ever was to Peter's. Still, Spidey fans would find that odd, right? Same thing here. It's a missed opportunity.
Forgoing that I don't find the comparison apt at all*, all of that is based on the 616 universe and ignores that the MCU is it's own beast, and complaining that something different is, well, different, is a bit spurious. I'm a fan of the comic as well but I have had no issues separating the comics from the films, and appreciate that it isn't a straight up transliteration. So far Marvel Studios have been doing a good balancing act of fidelity to the source material while forging their own path.
*Electro is a through and through villain, and since Spider-man has not been shown to be even bisexual the fact he is a man also is good indicator that he might not be interested. Black Widow is neither, and in the MCU isn't even as much of an unknown quantity as she is in the comics. Now if you compared Betty Brant and Black Cat that might have been a bit more accurate, or Gwen Stacy and Black Cat.
You've heard the rumors about Jamie Foxx, right?.
Felicia and ELEKTRA are a solid enough analogy to Sharon and Natasha. Each pair is more-or-less interchangeable onscreen (Felicia and Gwen aren't because Gwen isn't superheroic and can't replace Felicia throughout the story). Yet one character (Felicia/Sharon) is core to and a romantic interest in the hero's comic mythos, while the other (Elektra/Natasha) is neither.
Taking your line of thinking to an extreme, sure, Marvel would be well within its rights to portray the movie Cap as a disco-dancing lycanthrope with a rainbow cape, flames on his boots and a shield that shoots Cap-bolas. It's not the comic, it's their movie universe and they can do anything they want in it, much like this guy.
Some people might be okay with disco lycanthrope Cap it as long as he fought in WWII. For others, that'd cross the line and wouldn't be what they want to see from a Cap movie. Different people interface with the source material differently.
So yes, in fact personally I *can't* separate the movie and source material to where I think the spy Cap is supposed to kicking ass with is Natasha and not Sharon. I feel it's an important point in the source material that should be reflected in a Cap film. *shrug*
gorgon wrote: Felicia and ELEKTRA are a solid enough analogy to Sharon and Natasha.
I think we already figured out where the problem with that was, and even though it is funnier as Electro, I don't really find it all that apt even when talking of the right characters.
gorgon wrote: Taking your line of thinking to an extreme
I don't think you understand my line of reasoning, or you wouldn't make such as asinine statement as you did. I talked about a balance of fidelity to the source while being a separate entity. What you described would not begin to fit that description.
gorgon wrote: So yes, in fact personally I *can't* separate the movie and source material
As long as you recognize that that is your problem, and not an actual problem with the MCU.
gorgon wrote: I feel it's an important point in the source material that should be reflected in a Cap film. *shrug*
Except the movies do reflect the source material, they just aren't exact translations of it. Just because you put a lot of focus on that relationship doesn't mean the idea of Captain America relies solely on it when being brought to the big screen, or any other medium for that matter. If you want an exact version just go reread the comic again.
This conflation of ones own idea of a character with all ideas of the character remind me of an article about communities that hate their own members. Comics are the first listed, and mainly because comic fans become so invested in their own personal connections to characters and stories they have trouble when others have a different view of those characters.
Well, apparrently there is some source material that have Cap & Widow getting together long enough to evidently have a child together, though how this works with Black Widow evidently being infertile, I dont know.
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, apparrently there is some source material that have Cap & Widow getting together long enough to evidently have a child together, though how this works with Black Widow evidently being infertile, I dont know.
not only is he a super solider but hes also got super little soldiers?
Yeah I don't see Widow taking the role of Sharon Carter at all. There's no romantic entanglement with Widow and Cap. They're friendly co-workers (at best), and she needles him about being a 'fossil', and he makes self-deprecating jokes about how old he is. The movie shows how that develops into a friendship and a greater bond of trust, and that’s not a bad thing and it’s not just because “OMG! ScarJo is so hot right now” Hollywood bull gak either.
Carter was wasted in this film, but like Rumlow her presence was there to set future stories up. That doesn’t absolve the film for misusing her (it didn’t misuse Rumlow), but it does mean that we can expect to see her show up again (Emily Van Camp stars on another Disney-owned production, so she’s ‘part of the family’, so I wouldn’t expect her to go far – we’ll see her again).
pretre wrote: Just catching up on this thread. Saw the very end of the latest agents of shield but missed the rest.
Spoiler:
H.B.M.C. totally called it, guess they did have the balls if I understood the end correctly. Will rewatch tonight.
I called it, yes, but I don't think it'll stick. I still think the show will pussy out and have him turn good again, either due to triple-agent shenanigans or, worse, some sort of ultra-lame "power of love" plotline where he's so torn over loyalties and Skye that he comes back.
I disagree w/ H.B.M.C. re: Widow/Cap, nothing in Hollywood is accidental, the reason we are having this discussion at all is because it was presented in the film in an ambiguous enough manner to imply the possibility.
I'm not saying it couldn't happen - there are certainly plotlines in various continuities where the two of them get together. What I disagree with is the idea that Widow replaced Sharon Carter in Sharon Carter's role.
Ahtman wrote: Except the movies do reflect the source material, they just aren't exact translations of it. Just because you put a lot of focus on that relationship doesn't mean the idea of Captain America relies solely on it when being brought to the big screen, or any other medium for that matter. If you want an exact version just go reread the comic again.
This conflation of ones own idea of a character with all ideas of the character remind me of an article about communities that hate their own members. Comics are the first listed, and mainly because comic fans become so invested in their own personal connections to characters and stories they have trouble when others have a different view of those characters.
Um...what?
Ahtman, you've once again made a mountain out of a molehill because you're in the mood for a forum tussle.
My point's been made and I stand by my opinion. Everyone else seems to understand it, even if they disagree. It really doesn't bother me if you think it invalid based on your own personal measure of "fidelity".
So I was thinking about what happens after this first batch of actors quits. Maybe it's as easy as Marvel looking to the comics? It might already be part of the plan.
After Thor, Hulk, and Iron Man left the Avengers in the comics, the next waves of new Avengers included Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, and Vision, among others. Aren't those three characters already cast for Avengers 2? And if they generally follow the Brubaker storyline in Cap 3, they'd have a new Cap to lead the team.
Black Panther was also a member around that time period in the comics, and they've been flirting with a BP movie for years, so that's also a possibility for a new Avenger and/or new solo franchise. Wasp could be in the Ant-Man film, making her another possibility for future Avengers installments.
If Guardians of the Galaxy is a success, Marvel might not need Iron Man, Thor, original Cap, etc. They'll probably feel very confident about dipping deeper into their catalog. But it's hard to imagine it all working without RDJ. I still think he deserves about half a billion dollars from Marvel for his role in helping build the whole franchise.
Yeah. The last episode was set during/right after The Winter Soldier. The episode before that is set directly before The Winter Soldier. The episodes before them are the episodes leading up to that, where tons of gak happens (and the show starts being good).
I just realized why Thor would have left the staff on Earth, though not necessarily a good idea. Spoilers ahed from other Marvel films, so be warned.
At the end of Dark World they take the Aether to The Collector becuase 'it is to dangerous to have two infinity gems in one place". On Asgaard they already have the Tesseract (Space) so they don't want the Aether there as well. The gem in Loki's scepter is the Mind gem, so Thor left it on Earth with his friends at SHIELD aka HYDRA so that they wouldn't have that as well. If he had taken it at the end of Dark World they would have had three of the five gems on Asgaard, and that is probably not a good idea.
So far we have Infinity Gem of:
Mind ~ Loki's Staff
Space ~ Tesseract
Power ~ Aether
Introducing Dr. Strange allows them to introduce the Soul Gem in some form, I think. Didn't Adam Warlock have it? Been awhile since I read Infinity Gauntlet.
Apparently James Gunn (director of Guardians of the Galaxy) recently stated that it would tie into Avengers 3.
Having read the prequel comic for Guardians of the Galaxy, it looks like that orb Starlord is caught stealing at the beginning of the trailer is going to be our next Infinity Gem. No idea what any of them are so no idea which it would be.
AduroT wrote: Having read the prequel comic for Guardians of the Galaxy, it looks like that orb Starlord is caught stealing at the beginning of the trailer is going to be our next Infinity Gem. No idea what any of them are so no idea which it would be.
Is that the one with Nebula? I got the impression that that was a separate relic, not the one in the trailer.
For one thing the tomb was, you know, flying, which it wasn't in the trailer.
AduroT wrote: I thought the tomb thing was flyng in the trailer?
Automatically Appended Next Post: But yes, the nebula comic.
I certainly didn't get that impression, it seemed like it was solidly built into the ground, which is why Korath was able to Pursue him to the sphere. It might have been slight artistic licence, but the stone that the tombs were made from seemed to be different as well; the comic rock was much brighter, almost marble white, whereas the rock in the trailer was dark grey approaching black.
Liked the movie actually cared about Captain America this time around, two questions though why does the Winter Soldier have communist iconography on his metal arm (the red star) when he is an American who was experimented on by Nazis and what was the significance of the scene
when Captain America and Black Widow were in Falcon's house and he was showing them the papers?
Cheesecat wrote: Liked the movie actually cared about Captain America this time around, two questions though why does the Winter Soldier have communist iconography on his metal arm (the red star) when he is an American who was experimented on by Nazis and what was the significance of the scene
when Captain America and Black Widow were in Falcon's house and he was showing them the papers?
CA thought Falcon was a pilot, when he was using an experimental flight device, the papers where of him using it.
And they tried to keep Winter Soldier accurate in appearance to the comics. The star on the metal arm is kind of his "thing". I'm glad they kept it, even if in the movie it was Nazis. In the comics, the Russians got ahold of him.
timetowaste85 wrote: And they tried to keep Winter Soldier accurate in appearance to the comics. The star on the metal arm is kind of his "thing". I'm glad they kept it, even if in the movie it was Nazis. In the comics, the Russians got ahold of him.
Thanks for the quick responses timetowaste and hotsauceman.
timetowaste85 wrote: And they tried to keep Winter Soldier accurate in appearance to the comics. The star on the metal arm is kind of his "thing". I'm glad they kept it, even if in the movie it was Nazis. In the comics, the Russians got ahold of him.
To be fair, they actually explained it actually well and it wasn't just "Nazis did it".
They made a reference to "Operation: Paperclip" explaining that was how members of Hydra ended up being amongst SHIELD. Paperclip was the United States basically offering pardons to Nazi scientists in exchange for a new life in the US and working on the soon to start space program.
The Russians did something similar...so Winter Soldier could have been a Hydra agent without really being a Hydra agent.
