Marvel's "Captain America: Civil War" has added another name to its growing cast with Martin Freeman, who will make his debut in the film.
"From his roles as Bilbo Baggins and Doctor Watson to Tim in 'The Office,' Martin's range from the dramatic to the comedic has consistently impressed us," said "Captain America: Civil War" Producer Kevin Feige. "We couldn't be more honored or excited to have such a talented actor join the Marvel Cinematic Universe."
Celebrated for his roles in "Sherlock," "Fargo," the “Hobbit” trilogy, and much more, Freeman has earned one Primetime Emmy® Award and one BAFTA Award, both for his portrayal of Doctor John Watson in "Sherlock." Martin has also been nominated for a Golden Globe® for his role of Lester Nygaard in “Fargo”, and nominated for a further two Emmy Awards and two BAFTA Awards. Most recently Martin has been seen hosting SNL and has filmed Tina Fey's untitled wartime black comedy.
"Captain America: Civil War" hits theaters May 6, 2016. Stay tuned to Marvel.com for the latest on all of Marvel Studios' upcoming films as it breaks.
Well, we have Cumberbatch as Strange, so Freeman as Wong?
No, I'm guessing he'll be in a human (government or SHIELD) role rather than anyone powered/connected to anyone powered, simply as he's kind of made a name for himself with Sherlock/Hobbit as playing the 'ordinary guy' surrounded by lunatics and badasses!
What is very odd is that literally just yesterday I was remarking how surprised I was Freeman hadn't got an MCU role yet...
Thus ushering in a series of Canadian Super Hero flicks, culminating in a super polite team of Hero's who cordially invite Thanos to a parlay and hash things out over a few Canadian brews.
It'd be interesting to see how they do her origin, given Banner's overwhelming concern for damage he can do. There'd also be some issues I think- major angst- if she shows up with basically all the upsides of being Hulk but none of the rage/control issues.
It'd be interesting to see how they do her origin, given Banner's overwhelming concern for damage he can do. There'd also be some issues I think- major angst- if she shows up with basically all the upsides of being Hulk but none of the rage/control issues.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When I seen civil war in the title, I honestly thought this be an origin film, like Captain America fighting the confederates in 1861 or something
Instead, we get some super-hero punch up. Again! Boo
Eh, this storyline happened in Avengers comics, and it's one of the better modern storylines IMHO (actually, it's probably top 3 total timeline stories for me where Avengers are concerned). It has potential to be an amazing movie, though feth me, I am not sure how they'll do it justice in one installment.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When I seen civil war in the title, I honestly thought this be an origin film, like Captain America fighting the confederates in 1861 or something
Instead, we get some super-hero punch up. Again! Boo
Eh, this storyline happened in Avengers comics, and it's one of the better modern storylines IMHO (actually, it's probably top 3 total timeline stories for me where Avengers are concerned). It has potential to be an amazing movie, though feth me, I am not sure how they'll do it justice in one installment.
I disagree - I think it was one of the worst, most overwrought and drawn out storylines in recent comics history and ended with one of the dumbest deaths and resurrections ever.
On top of that, given the VERY limited slate of heroes in the Marvel Movie Universe, a movie version of CIVIL WAR is going to be really hard to pull off.
On top of that, given the VERY limited slate of heroes in the Marvel Movie Universe, a movie version of CIVIL WAR is going to be really hard to pull off.
I don't know. We have plenty, for a film at least, but the problem I see is that most of them are on Team Cap.
Cap has, if we go by the comics and ones that have/will have films:
Falcon
Vision
Spidey (eventually)
Daredevil
Luke Cage
I'm guessing Black Panther
Witch
Stark has:
Pym (retired)
War Machine
Spidey (initially)
Ant-man (possibly)
Captain Marvel/Warbird (but possibly not in the film)
Hawkeye and Widow could go either way, Hulk is presumably out of the picture, and I'd be surprised to see them take the Thor-clone route. So unless they bring in some villains (Zemo's Thunderbolts, please!) Or Stark's 'enhanced' project for creating new heroes, it looks to be a pretty one sided fight.
Actually, my brother suggested that (in jest) the other day. Freeman as the human Reynolds, and someone famed for 'ard nut roles as The Sentry.
That said, I'll possibly cry a little the day Marvel announces a Sentry film. I can't stand the character.
I only liked him in World War Hulk.
Also, I'm just going to start using this topic as a general MCU thread.
So, for those following Agents of Shield. Inhuman's are already getting screen time. We know they are getting their own movie in 2019. So this made me wonder..... Who the hell is going to land the role of Black Bolt? :3
Spoilerish thoughts about AoS including last episode:
Spoiler:
So, the inhumans just kicked off a war with Shield in the last episode, considering that this means an entire village full of (potential) powered people will go to war with Shield, could this actually be a catalyst for Civil war? I imagine they aren't going to settle on the moon just yet.
Aaargh, I keep forgetting you lot (as in the rest of the world) are about 3 weeks ahead on SHIELD! To be fair you did put it in spoiler tags, so it's my own fault.
Christopher Lee as Black Bolt; he won't say much, but it'll be awesome when he does! (Now Freeman has been cast, Lee and Mark Strong are the only people I really think need MCU roles. Still holding out hope the latter will be cast as Mordo)
I don't know. I figured it would be a less physical role, so voice and presence would be more important than looking like he could win a brawl.
Back to CW, though, anyone else wondering if we'll see The Watchers turn up? The whole MCU has been getting more and more cosmic building towards Infinity, and the Watcher does appear at several major events in the CW comic, on the eve of the war, at Foster's death (which I yhink might not translate to the film) and before the final battle.
Marvel Studios has commenced principal photography at Pinewood Studios in Atlanta, Georgia on “Captain America: Civil War,” the third installment of its Super Hero franchise. The production will shoot on location in Atlanta, Georgia, which serves as the base for the film’s production, as well as locations in Germany, Puerto Rico and Iceland.
Set for release in the United States on May 6, 2016, “Captain America: Civil War” is directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (Marvel’s “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” “Community”) from a screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely (“Captain America: The Winter Solider,” Marvel’s “Captain America: The First Avenger”). The film returns Chris Evans (“Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” Marvel’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron”) as the iconic Super Hero character Steve Rogers/Captain America along with Robert Downey Jr. (“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” Marvel’s “Iron Man 3”) as Tony Stark/Iron Man, Scarlett Johansson (“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”) as Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow, Sebastian Stan (“Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” “Captain America: The First Avenger”) as Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier, Anthony Mackie (“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”) as Sam Wilson/Falcon, Paul Bettany (“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Iron Man 3”) as The Vision, Jeremy Renner (“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” Marvel’s “The Avengers”) as Clint Barton/Hawkeye, Don Cheadle (“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Iron Man 3”) as Jim Rhodes/War Machine and Elizabeth Olsen (“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Godzilla”) as Wanda Maximoff/Scarlet Witch.
After his debut in Marvel’s “Ant-Man” on July 17, 2015, Paul Rudd (“Ant-Man,” ”Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues”) will make his first appearance alongside the Avengers as Scott Lang/Ant-Man in “Captain America: Civil War.”
The film also includes outstanding additional cast, including Chadwick Boseman (“42,” “Get on Up”) as T’Challa/Black Panther, Emily VanCamp (“Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” “Revenge”) as Sharon Carter/Agent 13, Daniel Brühl (“Inglourious Basterds,” “Bourne Ultimatum”), Frank Grillo (“Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” “Warrior”) as Brock Rumlow/Crossbones, William Hurt (“A History of Violence,” Marvel’s “The Incredible Hulk”) as General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross and Martin Freeman (“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies”).
“Captain America: Civil War” picks up where “Avengers: Age of Ultron” left off, as Steve Rogers leads the new team of Avengers in their continued efforts to safeguard humanity. After another international incident involving the Avengers results in collateral damage, political pressure mounts to install a system of accountability and a governing body to determine when to enlist the services of the team. The new status quo fractures the Avengers while they try to protect the world from a new and nefarious villain.
Marvel’s “Captain America: Civil War” is produced by Marvel Studios’ president, Kevin Feige, with Louis D’Esposito, Alan Fine, Victoria Alonso, Patricia Whitcher, Nate Moore and Stan Lee serving as executive producers.
Directors Joe and Anthony Russo’s creative team also includes director of photography Trent Opaloch (“Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” “Elysium”), production designer Owen Paterson (“Godzilla,” “Matrix”), and three time Oscar®-nominated costume designer Judianna Makovsky (“Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”).
Based on the Marvel comic character first published in 1941, “Captain America: Civil War ” continues the lineage of epic big-screen adventures chronicled in “Iron Man,” “The Incredible Hulk,” “Iron Man 2,” “Thor,” “Captain America: The First Avenger,” “Marvel's The Avengers,” “Iron Man 3,” “Thor: The Dark World,” “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” “Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Avengers: Age of Ultron” and the upcoming release schedule, which includes Marvel’s “Ant-Man” on July 17, 2015, Marvel’s “Doctor Strange,” on November 4, 2016, Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy 2,” on May 5, 2017, and Marvel’s “Thor: Ragnarok,” on November 3, 2017.
Marvel Studios most recently continued its unprecedented success with the release of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” on May 1, 2015. The film recorded the second biggest opening weekend of all time with a $191.3 million box office. It has also been the #1 release in every country where it has been released.
Glad to see Crossbones and Agent 13 coming back, I felt Cap2 left open a lot of potential for both of them. More surprised to see Ross, though, especially as Hulk isn't featuring (presumably)
Looks like the Stamford equivalent will be an actual Avengers incident as well, so hopefully it'll open with the same kind of epic battle as AoU, and we'll get to see this awesome new lineup in action at least once before they all start killing each other.
Alpharius wrote: That's a lot of characters to try and cram into a 2 hour (give or take) movie.
The comic series had too many characters and dragged on to long - this movie sounds like a mess before it even starts!
Of course I'll give them the benefit of the doubt - and Cap 2 was one of the best MU movies to date, so...
...maybe this one will be OK?
I feel like Marvel likes the source material more than anyone else does. The only way this works in a 2-hour film is if it's more of a "Civil Dust-Up" than a "Civil War."
Alpharius wrote: That's a lot of characters to try and cram into a 2 hour (give or take) movie.
The comic series had too many characters and dragged on to long - this movie sounds like a mess before it even starts!
Of course I'll give them the benefit of the doubt - and Cap 2 was one of the best MU movies to date, so...
...maybe this one will be OK?
I feel like Marvel likes the source material more than anyone else does. The only way this works in a 2-hour film is if it's more of a "Civil Dust-Up" than a "Civil War."
Fair point - and probably pretty much what we're going to get!
Easy E wrote: I've heard some movie insiders say that Cap is eclipse Thor's popularity at the moment and that could impact some studio decisions.
They're going to have to start flashing "buy your own Caribbean island" money if they want to keep Evans around, given he's apparently almost as sick of maintaining his superhero physique as Hemsworth and wants to be done with Cap in 2017 so he can work on directing. I suppose if they pull it off they might be able to transition to BuckyCap or FalconCap in a way that maintains the popularity, but Evans nailed the role pretty comprehensively so any replacement will have a hard time.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When I seen civil war in the title, I honestly thought this be an origin film, like Captain America fighting the confederates in 1861 or something
Instead, we get some super-hero punch up. Again! Boo
Eh, this storyline happened in Avengers comics, and it's one of the better modern storylines IMHO (actually, it's probably top 3 total timeline stories for me where Avengers are concerned). It has potential to be an amazing movie, though feth me, I am not sure how they'll do it justice in one installment.
I disagree - I think it was one of the worst, most overwrought and drawn out storylines in recent comics history and ended with one of the dumbest deaths and resurrections ever.
On top of that, given the VERY limited slate of heroes in the Marvel Movie Universe, a movie version of CIVIL WAR is going to be really hard to pull off.
Which is fine, but that doesn't keep it from being a commercial success.
An excerpt below, all of which is true (and by proxy, does not counteract your point, but reinforces it ; you are on one side of the polar opinions on the series, i'm on the other).
The series received polarizing reviews but was a commercial success, spawning many media adaptations, including the upcoming 2016 film Captain America: Civil War.
The wiki only hints (and unfortunately, only negatively at that) that it's a delivery mechanism of Erich Fromm's theory on the desires for freedom and security. That was the point of the book during a time in American politics where a few years past 9/11 (2006-2007), people started asking questions about stuff like the Patriot act and other post 9/11 legislation. Was it the hardest hitting commentary ? Nope. Did it do pretty good for a comic book and still manage to sell a good number of books, spawn a whole bunch of other titles and media related for even more sales ? Yup.
Is it the basis of what is undoubtedly going to be another huge grossing Marvel film ? Yup.
It did something right even if you personally didn't like it and found it's plot overwrought.
I will agree with you, the resurrection was stupid. They should have kept Cap dead if they really wanted the series to have an impact, and then reboot Captain America with a new super soldier, etc. if they wanted to continue with him. I'm with you on that !
About the "lot of characters" thing... not all of them ahve to play integral parts. You can flash and pan to other things pointing out which basically means you just need a talented costumeer and bodies to put them in to show "Hey, there's other gak going on in this conflict too, but this film focuses through the lens of these 10-15 characters (or whatever number)." There's cinematography tricks that can be employed to give the viewer a much larger sense of vastness while really only tacking on the number of extras in the film and focusing on the integral storyline of a smaller primary cast.
I'm hoping for bucky/cap. I think they made a clue of that in the first Captain America story where, just before Bucky "dies" he picks up Cap's shield and fires a 1911, a trademark bucky/cap move.
But Civil War was my favorite Marvel Story line ever...right until the very end. I don't know how they're supposed to do that with 90% of the cast missing and only one movie.
And shameless plug, they really need a Thunderbolts movie with Songbird in it.
Yodhrin wrote: They're going to have to start flashing "buy your own Caribbean island" money if they want to keep Evans around, given he's apparently almost as sick of maintaining his superhero physique as Hemsworth and wants to be done with Cap in 2017 so he can work on directing. I suppose if they pull it off they might be able to transition to BuckyCap or FalconCap in a way that maintains the popularity, but Evans nailed the role pretty comprehensively so any replacement will have a hard time.
He said he wants to take a break from acting for a while to do some directing, not that he's sick of playing Cap.
And shameless plug, they really need a Thunderbolts movie with Songbird in it.
I'd love Zemo's Thunderbolts as a film; I really liked their arc in Civil War and Zemo is just awesome.
I think the 'villain' movie is a card Marvel is saving, though (perhaps for Loki at some point?). DC have Suicide Squad coming, and Sony were doing Sinister 6 (sadly I think that's dead in the water now), so they were probably going to let those test the waters before committing to the risk of a film based on the baddies.
So far the MCU movies have been very very good and I hope this continues the theme - the large cast did not (IMO) hurt either Avengers 1 or 2 - not so great with Gof the G but that might well be not enjoying some of the specific characters as much......
Not really a big fan of most of the Marvel "events" - of them I really only enjoyed "Inferno" and "House of M" - which obviousy not relevant here......
Shame no Hulk or Thor......
The only down side I can see of the big "hero" cast is less likely get much from their indivudal suport teams/girlffirends which is a shame. For me its of the many things that MCU does better than the DC films - its not "just" an action film - actually have some good character interactions....../human moments - Hawkeye elements were standout for this in AOU
It did something right even if you personally didn't like it and found it's plot overwrought.
So...it's OK if I have an opinion on it? Whew!
You know exactly what i was driving at, it's not necessary to resort to this old trope ; "Ermagerd, we disagree, THANK GOD ITS OK WITH YOU I CAN HAVE AN OPINION". Rather than acknowledge each others points and counter points.
I was reinforcing several things you said, while bringing up other points. That's called normal discourse, point and counter point.
The only down side I can see of the big "hero" cast is less likely get much from their indivudal suport teams/girlffirends which is a shame. For me its of the many things that MCU does better than the DC films - its not "just" an action film - actually have some good character interactions....../human moments - Hawkeye elements were standout for this in AOU
To be honest, I don't see this as a loss. Those characters are needed when it comes to the solo films just flesh out the cast, but in the team movies (and this is Avengers 2.5, really, rather than Cap 3) they are really a tad superfluous, especially as the dynamics and relationships between the characters in the team are so well handled. Hawkeye in AoU was the exception since up to that point he hasn't had any kind of character building done, but I'm very glad Jane/Pepper ect were left out of it.
I think this is another reason why Cap 2 was so good; the 'supporting cast' of Widow and Falcon were interesting, unique and cool characters in their own right, whereas the supporting casts of IM/Thor are basically the same set of 'lead's girlfriend/lead's friend/lead's other friend' and not the most interesting characters.
Thor 2 again did it better with the Asgardian characters (well, Loki for the most part), but at this point I'd be happy if we never saw Jane/Darcy/Selvig/Pepper/Happy on screen again. They've done their part in getting the Heroes to where they are, but what more can you do with them? It's not that they are inherently dull, just that now everything is connected, they just compete for screen time with the people we watch these films to see, the Avengers and other heroes.
Haight wrote: Which is fine, but that doesn't keep it from being a commercial success.
Y'mean like how Transformers 4 was the highest grossing movie of 2014?
Commercial success =/= good.
I didn't see Trans4, I stopped after Trans1 which i thought was terrible and decided my money was better spent than to see further installments. You didn't like Trans4, but it made a gak ton of money.
Would it be fair to state then that lots of people liked it, and liked Trans 1-3 enough to go see 4 ? Seeing as it was the highest grossing movie of 2014 and all.
Just because you and I don't like it doesn't mean its not good and that a multitude of people didn't like it, and therefore it was a success. Same thing with Civil War. If Trans was the highest grossing film of 2014, a lot of people did like it. Even if the majority on Dakka didn't.
This is the epitome of opinion.
Someone who likes Trans4 could bring up good points about it. I think it would be a HUGE overstatement, even if one didn't like Trans4 (or by proxy, anything else) to 100% write it off that every iota of it was terrible, nothing salvageable.
What i was pointing out about Civil War is that it's a polarizing storyline, but it was a commercial success - people seem to love it or hate, with little common ground. I think the story has good things / bad things in it. I liked its overall premise (The nod to Erich Fromm was really nice), but it had some stuff not done so well (the ending was... rushed. The resurrection was stupid, amongst other things).
Wholesale traffic in absolutes without point / counterpoint and open consideration of points we don't necessarily immediately 100% agree with makes discussion pointless. At that point we're basically throwing words at one another, and what's the point ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: Agreed on what made CAP2 so good - and why I'm worried that CAP3 won't be so good.
Still, they might manage to surprise us all AND make Haight super happy too!
Haight wrote: Which is fine, but that doesn't keep it from being a commercial success.
Y'mean like how Transformers 4 was the highest grossing movie of 2014?
Commercial success =/= good.
I didn't see Trans4, I stopped after Trans1 which i thought was terrible and decided my money was better spent than to see further installments. You didn't like Trans4, but it made a gak ton of money.
Would it be fair to state then that lots of people liked it, and liked Trans 1-3 enough to go see 4 ? Seeing as it was the highest grossing movie of 2014 and all.
32% Metacrtitic Rating and 18% on Rotten Tomatoes, so no, it really wouldn't be fair to say that. The box office gross got a major boost from Chinese sales due to the fact that a nice chunk of the movie takes place in China. Bay basically replaces all the military porn of the past with China pandering in this one.
Most reviews point out the same flaws(once you get past the usual Bay and multiple villains stuff): TF4 suffers from bad pacing, unlikable characters(seriously, the Autobots are a bunch of jerks in this one), attempting to fit two main plots into the same film without giving either the time it really needed, and being exceedingly long.
I hated TF4 and I'm one of those who willingly watches the first three and actually enjoys the first and third movies.
All kidding aside, I actually do think that the movie version has a chance - a slight chance - so yes, I'm sayin' there's a chance! - to be better than the comics version.
It might also be where we see Capt. Bucky show up!
The only down side I can see of the big "hero" cast is less likely get much from their indivudal suport teams/girlffirends which is a shame. For me its of the many things that MCU does better than the DC films - its not "just" an action film - actually have some good character interactions....../human moments - Hawkeye elements were standout for this in AOU
To be honest, I don't see this as a loss. Those characters are needed when it comes to the solo films just flesh out the cast, but in the team movies (and this is Avengers 2.5, really, rather than Cap 3) they are really a tad superfluous, especially as the dynamics and relationships between the characters in the team are so well handled. Hawkeye in AoU was the exception since up to that point he hasn't had any kind of character building done, but I'm very glad Jane/Pepper ect were left out of it.
I think this is another reason why Cap 2 was so good; the 'supporting cast' of Widow and Falcon were interesting, unique and cool characters in their own right, whereas the supporting casts of IM/Thor are basically the same set of 'lead's girlfriend/lead's friend/lead's other friend' and not the most interesting characters.
Thor 2 again did it better with the Asgardian characters (well, Loki for the most part), but at this point I'd be happy if we never saw Jane/Darcy/Selvig/Pepper/Happy on screen again. They've done their part in getting the Heroes to where they are, but what more can you do with them? It's not that they are inherently dull, just that now everything is connected, they just compete for screen time with the people we watch these films to see, the Avengers and other heroes.
Each to their own - Agreed MCu handles the relationships so very well.
but..........Peper/Jane/Darcy are some of my favs - the bit between Tony and Pepper in Avengers 1 is one of the best bits - for me they are a huge part of why they do what they do.......who they are etc - thats again why the Hawkeye stuffwas so great for me in A2 - oh and everything else in that film - brilliant film that it was
Oh and loved Transformers 1 - all of it - but had zero knowledge going in - so nothing to fight against when I saw it.
Easy E wrote: I've heard some movie insiders say that Cap is eclipse Thor's popularity at the moment and that could impact some studio decisions.
They're going to have to start flashing "buy your own Caribbean island" money if they want to keep Evans around, given he's apparently almost as sick of maintaining his superhero physique as Hemsworth and wants to be done with Cap in 2017 so he can work on directing. I suppose if they pull it off they might be able to transition to BuckyCap or FalconCap in a way that maintains the popularity, but Evans nailed the role pretty comprehensively so any replacement will have a hard time.
They've been planning it anyway.
Evans only would commit to a 6 movie deal. Sebastian Stan signed up for 9 films. Given that 3 of those are taken up as Bucky/Winter Soldier by the end of Civil War, that leaves 6 films after Infinity War for him to pick up the shield. 6 films is 3 phases of films, just like Evans has done.
By then, we'll be up to phase 7 when he's out of contract. We'll be luck if they maintain this momentum through phase 6, honestly. So yeah, Stan will very likely take over as Cap for the rest of the Marvel slate.
Evans only would commit to a 6 movie deal. Sebastian Stan signed up for 9 films. Given that 3 of those are taken up as Bucky/Winter Soldier by the end of Civil War, that leaves 6 films after Infinity War for him to pick up the shield. 6 films is 3 phases of films, just like Evans has done.
By then, we'll be up to phase 7 when he's out of contract. We'll be luck if they maintain this momentum through phase 6, honestly. So yeah, Stan will very likely take over as Cap for the rest of the Marvel slate.
Signing up for multiple films doesn't mean you'll be in multiple films. An "X" picture contract just means that if the studio wants you you are obligated to show up for those films. They could kill both of 'em off in the next film and they'd still have films left in their contract.
Evans only would commit to a 6 movie deal. Sebastian Stan signed up for 9 films. Given that 3 of those are taken up as Bucky/Winter Soldier by the end of Civil War, that leaves 6 films after Infinity War for him to pick up the shield. 6 films is 3 phases of films, just like Evans has done.
By then, we'll be up to phase 7 when he's out of contract. We'll be luck if they maintain this momentum through phase 6, honestly. So yeah, Stan will very likely take over as Cap for the rest of the Marvel slate.
Signing up for multiple films doesn't mean you'll be in multiple films. An "X" picture contract just means that if the studio wants you you are obligated to show up for those films. They could kill both of 'em off in the next film and they'd still have films left in their contract.
Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fact that they've been very obviously planning for it.
The fact is, Evans contract is nearly up, and while he's obviously had a lot of fun with the role, he wants to move on, and said as much when he took the role (he was hesitant even signing for 6 films).
If they decide to keep the Captain America films going, which I'm sure they will, then Stan is right there to slide into place. They could go with Mackie, but with the fan reaction to Stan as Winter Soldier, I'm fairly confident they'll give it to him.
Yeah, They Realize how much these fillms
1:Typecast them
2: How popular it makes them. Remember when RDJ did that Iron Man giving a kid a new arm? I bet stuff like that is intoxicating. Being able to be known by a generation of kids at their hero
3: Disnet probably has more money than sense.
Am I in a minority in thinking Civil War was actually an awesome series of comics? I admittedly haven't read a ton of comics, but of the arcs I have read start to finish, I'd say only Planet Hulk was better (and possibly Avengers vs X-men as a story, but the artwork for CW was certainly better).
and then the Southern States reply with Captain Confederacy
Wouldn;t that still be another Super-hero punch up?
I like the idea that he would get unfrozen in the 1960s. The film would be about Cpt. America (played by Larry David) beating up black people for sitting in the 'white seats' on the bus.
Paradigm wrote: Am I in a minority in thinking Civil War was actually an awesome series of comics? I admittedly haven't read a ton of comics, but of the arcs I have read start to finish, I'd say only Planet Hulk was better (and possibly Avengers vs X-men as a story, but the artwork for CW was certainly better).
I liked it. But it plants two charzcters with no personality as the de facto leaders of the opposing sides.
Paradigm wrote: Am I in a minority in thinking Civil War was actually an awesome series of comics? I admittedly haven't read a ton of comics, but of the arcs I have read start to finish, I'd say only Planet Hulk was better (and possibly Avengers vs X-men as a story, but the artwork for CW was certainly better).
Aaaaand that's the end of Fem-Thor. She has her own name. She's just that person wielding Mjolnir. We were promised Thor as a woman- what we got was a woman wielding Thor's power and weapon with a hastily added 'oh have my name too' added on.
Aaaaand that's the end of Fem-Thor. She has her own name. She's just that person wielding Mjolnir. We were promised Thor as a woman- what we got was a woman wielding Thor's power and weapon with a hastily added 'oh have my name too' added on.
I don't quite follow you here - what exactly is your problem with this reveal?
Kojiro wrote: Aaaaand that's the end of Fem-Thor. She has her own name. She's just that person wielding Mjolnir. We were promised Thor as a woman- what we got was a woman wielding Thor's power and weapon with a hastily added 'oh have my name too' added on.
Good. Thor isn't a woman. Thor is Thor, just as Sam Wilson is Captain America but he is not Steve Rogers.
I don't quite follow you here - what exactly is your problem with this reveal?
Series writer Jason Aaron emphasizes, “This is not She-Thor. This is not Lady Thor. This is not Thorita. This is THOR. This is the THOR of the Marvel Universe. But it’s unlike any Thor we’ve ever seen before.”
As I said, what we got wasn't Thor as promised. It was another established character who took up Mjolnir- as if that'sthe sum total of who Thor is- and gained the his powers. The only claim this 'Thor' has is that the real Thor- 'gave up his name' for being unworthy of Mjolnir. Again, as if he wasn't Thor for the hundreds of years before he got Mjolnir, and as if he wouldn't be Thor is Mjolnir was destroyed. It's hack writing at its best to claim a weapon defines the entirety of a character. And if Thor is to become unworthy- as has previously done- why would he give up his name this time? Note none of these criticisms have to do with who, or the gender of, the person who got the powers.
Good. Thor isn't a woman. Thor is Thor, just as Sam Wilson is Captain America but he is not Steve Rogers.
See I agree with this to a point. I don't mind a gender bent Thor so long as there's a reason for it. Asgard has outright magic, there's alternate dimensions/timeline. Who's to say Thor wasn't born a girl in one of them? That would be a legitimate female Thor. What you can't do- where I agree with you- is that picking up someone else's gear doesn't make you them- no matter how evil or unworthy of it they became.
I've been reading the She-Thor stuff, but now that they've done the reveal I'll probably stop. Not because of who she's turned out to be, Thor isn't one I've really read before so I've no investment there, but rather because I thought the writing was rather hack and overdone. Odin being the Massively idiot and just making one stupid decision after another. Every guy going "Pft, a GIRL Thor? Girls can't be heroes!" in a universe with dozens of preexisting female heros. The female criminal turning themselves in and not fighting back because us girls gotta stick together. The constant effort to say she didn't Just have Thor's power, but that she was actually Better at it than him. AND she was smarter. The whole thing was too heavy handed IMHO.
Kojiro wrote: See I agree with this to a point. I don't mind a gender bent Thor so long as there's a reason for it. Asgard has outright magic, there's alternate dimensions/timeline. Who's to say Thor wasn't born a girl in one of them? That would be a legitimate female Thor. What you can't do- where I agree with you- is that picking up someone else's gear doesn't make you them- no matter how evil or unworthy of it they became.
Genderbending Thor? No issue. They did it with Loki. Hell, they did it with Ultron, and that doesn't even make any sense! But having "Thor" as a female running around when the actual Thor is still around, and she's not from an alternate universe? That doesn't make sense.
Kojiro wrote: See I agree with this to a point. I don't mind a gender bent Thor so long as there's a reason for it. Asgard has outright magic, there's alternate dimensions/timeline. Who's to say Thor wasn't born a girl in one of them? That would be a legitimate female Thor. What you can't do- where I agree with you- is that picking up someone else's gear doesn't make you them- no matter how evil or unworthy of it they became.
Genderbending Thor? No issue. They did it with Loki. Hell, they did it with Ultron, and that doesn't even make any sense! But having "Thor" as a female running around when the actual Thor is still around, and she's not from an alternate universe? That doesn't make sense.
Purist would be more upset if there were NOT genderbending Loki. And Thor is historically a crossdresser who was engaged to a giant, so a female Thor isn't that much of a stretch.
Purist would be more upset if there were NOT genderbending Loki. And Thor is historically a crossdresser who was engaged to a giant, so a female Thor isn't that much of a stretch.
The thing to remember here is that a lot of people are upset at what happened to Thor because they like Thor. And as I said above the complaints can and would be made regardless of the gender of the recipient of his power. The only sexism angle to this thing is that what was done was done explicitly (and openly) to promote a feminist agenda. But even if you have good intentions, if you write gak and mess up beloved characters you're going to cop flak.
Purist would be more upset if there were NOT genderbending Loki. And Thor is historically a crossdresser who was engaged to a giant, so a female Thor isn't that much of a stretch.
The thing to remember here is that a lot of people are upset at what happened to Thor because they like Thor. And as I said above the complaints can and would be made regardless of the gender of the recipient of his power. The only sexism angle to this thing is that what was done was done explicitly (and openly) to promote a feminist agenda. But even if you have good intentions, if you write gak and mess up beloved characters you're going to cop flak.
Just a complementary reminder, Thor isn't a title. It's the birth name of Odins son. His name is actually Thor Odinson. So, the whole, make Thor a woman thing is just miles off the bat. Plus it came out of nowhere. And after the spectacle of horror that was Superior Spider-Man, I think people were in av" don't give it a chance" mentality anyway.
It's been hinted at that Beta Ray Bill was in the The Collector's museum on Knowhere. There was also a skeleton of a horse-headed type alien on Morag, when Star-Lord goes to retrieve the Orb from the vault.
Ahtman wrote: The hammer actually says (paraphrased) that whoever wields it gains the power of Thor not that they become Thor.
I don't mind that the wielder is female, I mind that they said that she is actually Thor by doing so.
If I have the power to fart lightning and fly because of a hammer, I may have the powers of hor, I don't have the right to use his name. Perhaps someone should tell marvel that.
Hmmm, I'm not sure if I'm sold. I don't see claws, I only see a black costume with pointy ears. Waiting for a better image. But it just feels...meh? I guess that's the best word for it right now. Hoping for a better image soon-BP is awesome and deserves justice. Plus he shares my initials!
Behind the scenes photos almost always lack the polish and finishing touches of the produced photos so it really isn't a shock he doesn't look complete. Hell, I doubt we'll see the crew and the wires in the completed shot but here they are in this one.
Agreed, I'm underwhelmed but this is only a production shot, so I'm not judging yet. With the exception of Cap's spandex suit in Avengers Assemble I can't think of a Marvel costume design that doesn't look excellent, so I expect the final version of this will have a lot more to it.
Didn't he usually have a cape though, or am I thinking of Moon Knight?? Not that ditching the cape isn't a good idea. Anyone who's seen the Incredibles knows that capes are functionally a bad idea
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Didn't he usually have a cape though, or am I thinking of Moon Knight?? Not that ditching the cape isn't a good idea. Anyone who's seen the Incredibles knows that capes are functionally a bad idea
Sometimes he does. Sometimes he doesn't. IMO he looks better without. And yes- Incredibles does raise a good point about capes (as does Watchmen come to think of it- Dollar Bill gets his cape stuck in a revolving door and gets gunned down)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Didn't he usually have a cape though, or am I thinking of Moon Knight?? Not that ditching the cape isn't a good idea. Anyone who's seen the Incredibles knows that capes are functionally a bad idea
Sometimes he does. Sometimes he doesn't. IMO he looks better without. And yes- Incredibles does raise a good point about capes (as does Watchmen come to think of it- Dollar Bill gets his cape stuck in a revolving door and gets gunned down)
Eh, the MCU needs more capes! Vision has the right idea, just creating a copy of Thor's out of... Whatever it was he made it out of.
I think a cape would sit well with the idea of BP being both a superhero and a king, but I can see why they might not use it on every scene... Or maybe they will, half the time Superman's cape in MoS was CGI, so they could be doing the same with BP.
In The Watchmen Moore was trying to have a grounded look at heroes; the only one in the comics with actual powers barely relates to humanity and the others are vigilantes with various levels of mental disorders. The Incredibles was done for comedic effect and it wasn't the first time that it had been joked about either.
Anyway, first Civil War footage was shown off today. Lots of Avengers fighting Crossbones, Thunderbolt Ross talking down to Cap, super-heroes running at one another, Tony giving Steve lip, and Ant-Man going all star struck when meeting Cap for the first time.
Well, we do know from other MCU movies that Thor is "currently" on Asgard probably dealing with Loki, and potentially gearing up for Ragnarok (since that's his next solo film) based on events in Ultron.
reds8n wrote: .. on those line ups have to say my money would be on the red team.
Guessing there must be a bit more to it, as any fight here is gonna last about 8 seconds.
But the blue team has GUMPTION!
See.... they aren't gonna fight with their fists. It'll be like a dance off, or one of those underground "Rap Battles" like Eminem used to do, or an episode of Yo' Mamma
Red team still wins, because Cap don't like Language
I know this isn't exactly based on the comics, but I'm surprised to see Vision on Team Stark. I agree it's all a bit uneven, but I'm hoping the Blue Team gets some backup in the form of messers Murdock, Cage, Castle and maybe even Lang, and possibly Witch too.
reds8n wrote: .. on those line ups have to say my money would be on the red team.
Guessing there must be a bit more to it, as any fight here is gonna last about 8 seconds.
But the blue team has GUMPTION!
See.... they aren't gonna fight with their fists. It'll be like a dance off, or one of those underground "Rap Battles" like Eminem used to do, or an episode of Yo' Mamma
Red team still wins, because Cap don't like Language
I think it'll be similar to how the comics tend to go. It always seemed like the Red Skull would have the Cosmic Cube and unlimited power, and Cap would defeat him by walking up and punching him in the mouth.
Tony will probably forget to use his repulsors or boot jets, and Cap will beat him down with his shield. Or something. I'm sure the movie will be a hero vs. hero fight fest that will skate around issues of power levels. IMO, the Marvel movies tend to work best when you turn off your brain anyway.
I think Vision is over-egging the pudding on Stark's team just a bit! How do you beat a guy made of Vibranium who can phase through stuff and shoot energy from his head?!
Also is it me or does War Machine have an upgrade shoulder cannon thingy? (see clash pic)
angelofvengeance wrote: I think Vision is over-egging the pudding on Stark's team just a bit! How do you beat a guy made of Vibranium who can phase through stuff and shoot energy from his head?!
timetowaste85 wrote: Also, if we don't get a slowed down moment of Jeremy Renner shooting an arrow that Paul Rudd is riding, I will boycott this movie forever!
Green Arrow and the Atom once killed Darkseid that way. (In an alternate reality where Darkseid defeated and enslaved the Earth.)
It's probably just the Quinjet, because realistically, only Falcon can fly (yeah, I know Ant Man can, but only in tiny form)
No, he's on to something. They've already said that 'Redwing' in the film is going to be a drone rather than an actual bird--and that doesn't look like a Quinjet. The tail is wrong.
timetowaste85 wrote: Also, if we don't get a slowed down moment of Jeremy Renner shooting an arrow that Paul Rudd is riding, I will boycott this movie forever!
Green Arrow and the Atom once killed Darkseid that way. (In an alternate reality where Darkseid defeated and enslaved the Earth.)
"You and me. Connor. Who'd have believed it?"
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
So between Civil War and Legends of Tomorrow, 2016 has a double chance to see a miniaturised superhero fired from an arrow...
I can't be the only one who might be disappointed if it doesn't happen!
Yeah, but it still has Arrow and Atom, that's what I was getting at.
Back to Cap 3, I'm wondering if the reason Scarlet Witch is AWOL is because she's out of action by the time the Fight starts. A SW meltdown would be a suitable substitute for the comic version's Stamford incident; if she goes mental on an Avengers mission and a load of people die, that could easily kick things off.
Paradigm wrote: Yeah, but it still has Arrow and Atom, that's what I was getting at.
Back to Cap 3, I'm wondering if the reason Scarlet Witch is AWOL is because she's out of action by the time the Fight starts. A SW meltdown would be a suitable substitute for the comic version's Stamford incident; if she goes mental on an Avengers mission and a load of people die, that could easily kick things off.
And it's not like Marvel can use House of M in movies, but it's a great precedent for her going wacko. Also, if she nukes Stamford, I guess I get a three day weekend from work, right?
Yeah, the absence of Scarlet Witch is interesting. Yes, the movie is stuffed with characters already, but she was announced as being in it (unlike Banner/Hulk and Thor, who have been said to not be in this).
I hope they don't do something stupid to her at the start of the film.
Mr Morden wrote: If spiderman is in the film - hopefully someone blows his head off in the opening sequence
Pretty sure that won't happen. He's part of the MCU now, and still reigns as Marvel's most popular character. You don't have to like him (I don't!), but you are going to have to accept him.
Mr Morden wrote: If spiderman is in the film - hopefully someone blows his head off in the opening sequence
Pretty sure that won't happen. He's part of the MCU now, and still reigns as Marvel's most popular character. You don't have to like him (I don't!), but you are going to have to accept him.
Hey I can hope Its all we have some times...............
I'm excited to see how the MU version compares - I've got high....hopes for him!
Let's just hope Civil War isn't a fall at the last hurdle movie. A lot of trilogies suffer from that.
Can't see happening to be honest. It's in great hands in the directorial department with the Russo brothers, all the scale of a full on Avengers film, and Marvel have been on a great run of form since Thor 2 that doesn't look to be stopping any time soon!
The biggest challenge CW is facing is the otherversion, the one with Superman and Batman in! Which in all honesty I'm more excited for. Marvel is, to a certain extent, a known quantity, whereas BvsS is a door into a whole new setting, and following a film that I at least rate as highly as anything Marvel.
But there's no need to pick sides. When we've got Captain America vs Iron Man in the same year as Batman vs Superman, my plan is just to sit back and enjoy what could be two of the coolest films ever!
Latino Review claims Captain America: Civil War will feature a riff on one of the comic book series’ more design-conscious choices: the Iron Spider armor.
You may recall in Civil War, Tony Stark gave Peter Parker new threads in the form an Iron Man-color coded suit of armor. Dubbed the “Iron Spider” and kitted with Stark technology, the web-crawler used it while he backed Tony during the event that split the Marvel universe in two. According to the rumor, the Iron Spider armor will not be featured in the film, but Stark will still outfit Peter with an essential piece of gear.
Spoiler Warning for your protection.
According to the report, “Stark will be the one responsible for creating Spidey’s web shooters.” As seen elsewhere, Parker’s initial Spider-Man costume will be more off-the-shelf and what Latino Review calls “things a teenager has access to.” Earlier reports also suggested Stark may offer the teen hero the more traditional Spidey costume. It was unclear if the costume would include the web shooters, however.
Originally a creation of Parker’s love for science, screen version of Spider-Man change the origin of the web shooters. In the Sam Raimi series, a genetic mutation caused Peter to grow organic web shooters while the two Amazing Spider-Man films made the webbing a collaboration of Peter and his father, with the younger Parker utilizing notes the elder left behind in a briefcase.
If true, it makes sense that Tony would be behind the technology, as any gear not derived from the Kree ends up being a Stark design, much to the consternation of Hank Pym. At the same time, Peter’s science background is one of the more interesting things about him. Figuring out a piece of gear like the web shooters would set him apart in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
.. I'd be alright that really.
It's only a small change and that aspect of spidey's life always bugged me somewhat.
Well, the teaser at the end of Ant-man clearly showed Falcon, Capt, and Winter all working together and implying that they were going to bring in Ant-man on their side.
I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that laws were set in place after Tony made a homicidal AI that almost wiped out the planet. I imagine between his tears over Cap, his guilt over making Ultron, and PTSD from the first Avengers film that it isn't a shock that he is all for registering super humans, or in this case it seems to be bringing in Bucky, dead or alive.
Easy E wrote: I love Cap, and I am not ashamed to say it!
Edit: Will the Black Panther film be out before this one?
Everyone knows Cap is the best Avenger.
BP comes out after this, I think it's the back end of 2017 but the announcement for Ant Man 2 shuffled things forward/back a bit.
I'm a big Cap fan, but I'd prefer some Cap films that aren't Avengers X.5. Also, Civil War wasn't that great of a storyline, but maybe the ultra-Cliff Notes version will work better than the super-bloated version.
I dunno...after the last Avengers film I'm a lot less interested in this one and the rest of the MCU.
I get that Gorgon but at the same time I feel like Cap, more than anyone in MCU currently, is a leader. A big part of his Character is leading and inspiring. So it's much harder to make stand alones without other heroes around in my opinion with him.
That said Avengers 2, while good for me, wasn't as fun as the first avengers. Still a fun, just not as good as their other offerings of late.
Ahtman wrote: I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that laws were set in place after Tony made a homicidal AI that almost wiped out the planet. I imagine between his tears over Cap, his guilt over making Ultron, and PTSD from the first Avengers film that it isn't a shock that he is all for registering super humans, or in this case it seems to be bringing in Bucky, dead or alive.
Tony has always been about protecting people from power left unchecked after he was a victim of his own weapons. So he created the Iron Man suit as a means to protect people from those powers. This, unfortunately, created a different type of arms race and one Tony has a hard time dealing with. He slowly became what he didn't want to be, a weapon. So he created Ultron to aid in his tasks, hopefully take over for him. This failed because it worked too well and Ultron tried to eliminate everyone. Now, Tony knows all of this before has been in error, but the registration would keep powers in check. As long as he is a part of it, he can keep it from becoming ugly. Not everyone is going to agree with Tony because Tony doesn't have a good track record for keeping things from getting ugly.
Maybe it is PTSD. But if it is, he has had it since IM1 and has been frantically trying to save people with one drastic action after another...all of which has always had the best intentions behind it, just heavy handed in the execution.
So, yes, this is the next logical step for Tony because this is what he has been trying to do all along, keep powers in check.
Man, I was feeling kinda bummed with all the Marvel stuff coming out, feeling like it was too much....
but this looks cool.
Still think Thor should have came out before Cap3. 3 films in a row about "Science" super heroes and urban fighting. I think Thor should have came out before cap 3.
gorgon wrote: I'm a big Cap fan, but I'd prefer some Cap films that aren't Avengers X.5.
Given they've never made a Cap film that is Avengers X.5, and that this has a real Winter Soldier vibe to it, we should be fine.
gorgon wrote: Also, Civil War wasn't that great of a storyline, but maybe the ultra-Cliff Notes version will work better than the super-bloated version.
Civil War was a bad story because Cap was clearly right and Stark was clearly wrong... and then Stark became a super-villain with inter-dimensional prison and brain-boxed villains and all sorts of other nonsense. That ain't happenin' here, and that's a good thing.
IIRC in the comic the original idea was to put Cap on the wrong side of something or have both sides be equally valid but audiences weren't happy with that so they went the route of the scrappy underdogs fighting for right. Or something like that.
Maybe it is PTSD
In Iron Man 3 they pretty much are explicit on this point.
Agree on the Spidey costume. Hulk looks more real on screen. The CGI on it is something I hope they still had time to fix after this trailer was put together.
I like how the first trailer was focused on Cap and his motivations, and this one was focused more on Tony and his motivations. it leads to an interesting dynamic where the viewer is being asked where they stand, and the movie isn't even out yet.
Paradigm wrote: 'I could do this all day'... perfect re-use of that line!
Spoiler:
On the other hand, really, really not impressed with Spidey. At all. A massive step backwards in the costume department there, I feel.
Bear in mind, that trailers don't necessarily reflect the finished product. Still a ways to go before the May release. Probably due some polish. Overall though I like it and I can't wait to see if Spidey gets some Stark tech upgrades (I think the mask has had some?)
Easy E wrote: I like how the first trailer was focused on Cap and his motivations, and this one was focused more on Tony and his motivations. it leads to an interesting dynamic where the viewer is being asked where they stand, and the movie isn't even out yet.
I am very excited.
Agreed... and with the exception of the half second shot showing Crossbones, we don't really have an out and out Bad Guy™ in the movie (I know, Winter Soldier is technically a bad guy, but its quite clear in the trailers that he's pulled an Italy here)
Paradigm wrote: 'I could do this all day'... perfect re-use of that line!
Spoiler:
On the other hand, really, really not impressed with Spidey. At all. A massive step backwards in the costume department there, I feel.
Bear in mind, that trailers don't necessarily reflect the finished product. Still a ways to go before the May release. Probably due some polish. Overall though I like it and I can't wait to see if Spidey gets some Stark tech upgrades (I think the mask has had some?)
I really hope this isn't the final look. In the last decade-and-a-bit we've had two versions of Spiderman that have looked frankly great (I rewatched the 2002/4 ones last week, I was very impressed with how most of the costumes and SFX held up), this seems like a real misstep after that. It just seems to lack any kind of detail or definition, which in a film that looks to be filled with amazing visuals, both practical and digital, really sticks out like a sore thumb.
The rest of the trailer looks brilliant, as did the last one, but I really think they made a mistake revealing Spidey this early, especially if it's unfinished. The Vision reveal in AoU was awesome as a) he looked fantastic and b) he wasn't seen in any of the trailers. Mind you, if I were in a cinema and had seen that Spidey for the first time, I'd probably have been just as disappointed.
I really hope this isn't the final look. In the last decade-and-a-bit we've had two versions of Spiderman that have looked frankly great (I rewatched the 2002/4 ones last week, I was very impressed with how most of the costumes and SFX held up), this seems like a real misstep after that. It just seems to lack any kind of detail or definition, which in a film that looks to be filled with amazing visuals, both practical and digital, really sticks out like a sore thumb.
I really hope they don't do this, but I could actually see them doing a "low-def" Spidey suit in order to throw in some Parker one-liners about how little money he has.
Wasn't "Tony Stark ruins everything" the point of Avengers 2? Why should I go pay to see a re-tread of that? It seems to me branding the "Internal Conflict" movie for this franchise under the banner of one of two sides is a huge mistake.Maybe the comic fans know enough about the Arc going into this to expect something else out of it but for causal movie-only fan like me it just seems so pointless. It's a Captain America movie, obviously we're going to be rooting for the title character, the title character is going to be clearly in the right and the title character is going to win.
It's fine knowing the title character is going to be right and kick ass when he's up against super-nazis, or killer aliens or whatever. However if I'm going to see a diverse set of characters I'm already familiar with, already kind of like and would kind of be interested in seeing how they shake out in a conflict I'd rather not know the outcome because only one side is the title.
I'm firmly scheduling this one for "Pass until Netflix".
Trust me, if the comics are anything to go by, that's really not how this is going to play out!
Not sure they'll have the guts to go with the 'proper' ending, but I really hope they do, if only because the follow-up comic would make such an awesome translation to a Phase 4 Cap movie after Infinity War.
I thought the suit looked a bit wonky, but I'm withholding judgement until I see more. The eyes were cool, but the red and blue seemed... I dunno, very off - as the article said, untextured. It does look a lot better in pictures.
Ouze wrote: I thought the suit looked a bit wonky, but I'm withholding judgement until I see more. The eyes were cool, but the red and blue seemed... I dunno, very off - as the article said, untextured. It does look a lot better in pictures.
I think it looks off because we've had the idea of Spider-Man's suit looking like a fething basketball for some reason shoved down our throats since 2002.
Paradigm wrote: Trust me, if the comics are anything to go by, that's really not how this is going to play out!
Not sure they'll have the guts to go with the 'proper' ending, but I really hope they do, if only because the follow-up comic would make such an awesome translation to a Phase 4 Cap movie after Infinity War.
I think they will go for the 'proper' ending.
Major spoiler, don't click if you don't know the comics!
Spoiler:
If I remember correctly, Chris Evans hasn't signed on for any more movies, but Sebastian Stan has. Could be old info and his contract was since renewed, but Cap getting killed in Civil War and Barnes picking up the Captain America persona is a likely possibility imo. Especially if they won't resolve the Civil War in Cap 3. They could span the arc over the next few movies (Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Thor 3) and let it end with a reunion for Avengers 3, when Thanos is about to attack.
TBF it might not be a spoiler -- look at some of the characters on the left !
What am I not seeing here? I'm passingly familiar with the comics so feel free to spoil me.
I think he's talking about
Spoiler:
giant Ant-Man
Indeed.
Spoiler:
In the comics Ant-man -- or versions of -- have at times instead/aswell had the power to grow to giant size.
Perhaps this one will too -- much like they did with the ant that they enlarged.
Would certainly give him a bit more "punch" or an extra edge in combat.
course it might just be a cool looking toy.
Note there's both Ant Man and Giant man figs. listed.
Paradigm wrote: Trust me, if the comics are anything to go by, that's really not how this is going to play out!
Not sure they'll have the guts to go with the 'proper' ending, but I really hope they do, if only because the follow-up comic would make such an awesome translation to a Phase 4 Cap movie after Infinity War.
I think they will go for the 'proper' ending.
Major spoiler, don't click if you don't know the comics!
Spoiler:
If I remember correctly, Chris Evans hasn't signed on for any more movies, but Sebastian Stan has. Could be old info and his contract was since renewed, but Cap getting killed in Civil War and Barnes picking up the Captain America persona is a likely possibility imo. Especially if they won't resolve the Civil War in Cap 3. They could span the arc over the next few movies (Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Thor 3) and let it end with a reunion for Avengers 3, when Thanos is about to attack.
If I recall,
Spoiler:
Evans is on for the next Avengers movies, Infinity War one and two. However, a) the fact he's on contract doesn't mean they have to use him, and b) we've still got the Time Gem to come in before then, so expect any major death to me reversed in short order Bucky-cap is all but confirmed, Stan is on a 9 film contract (presumably 3 Cap, 3 Bucky-cap and 3 Phase 4 Avengers, and in both appearance so far we've seen him wield the shield in a couple of poses that are iconic Bucky-cap poses, particularly in the first one where he has the pistol and shield on the train,just before he 'dies', that's classic Bucky-cap.
A good write up on the suit, and the pictures look much better IMO.
Better, but I'm still not much of a fan; the moving eyes really bug me, and I don't like the downplayed spider symbols much either... Doesn't help that the article puts it side by side with the other awesome iterations of the suit.
I can certainly see the Silver Age design elements, I'm just personally not much of a fan (I prefer post-2000-ish comics, or late 90s at most).
Evans was originally signed for 6 movies, 3 Cap & 3 Avengers. So unless they updated his contract (possible) he's not contracted for the second part of the third Avengers. I expect him to be the Coulsin at the end of Avengers 3a to give the team the gumption to triumph in Avengers 3b.
Evans and Hemsworth both have made it pretty clear they are happy with what they've done but are looking forward to getting out of the super suits. To be fair they also are the dudes who have to put in effort like it's going out of style for their characters body types.
I'm enjoying the trailers and excited for this. Like really excited. I'm just hoping they fix spidey's suit to make it look more finished and less pure CGI.
At this point, I'm guessing the suit is final. They've probably already shot some scenes with the actor in a real-life suit, right? Unless they're going the Green Lantern route with the suite being all CGI, all the time.
Anyway, past suits may have had exaggerated "webs," but those are what kept the suits from looking like big blobs of red. Kinda looks like Marvel throwing the baby out with the bathwater in the name of establishing that Spidey is "theirs."
Yeah, I can hope but I did so love the costume from Amazing Spiderman. This one just felt to fake but maybe they keep the suit but touch up the visuals so it fits better. My primary issue is that it feels entirely CGI. Hulk feels more real on screen to me than that costume. We know you can make a red suit look real 95% of the time and look good based on Deadpool
A lot of people complaining about Spidey's costume you have to realize it's how it looked back in the first comic (minus the web wings, Tony Stark says "UNDEROOS" and pops out spider-man.)
Look at Spider-mans original costume. I"m ok with this
But that's what I'm talking about -- rolling out the "correct" web pattern vs. going with something that actually looks good on screen. Kinda feels like Marvel's focus is on "reclaiming" Spidey, whereas we just want it to look cool.
Major spoiler, don't click if you don't know the comics!
Spoiler:
If I remember correctly, Chris Evans hasn't signed on for any more movies, but Sebastian Stan has. Could be old info and his contract was since renewed, but Cap getting killed in Civil War and Barnes picking up the Captain America persona is a likely possibility imo. Especially if they won't resolve the Civil War in Cap 3. They could span the arc over the next few movies (Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Thor 3) and let it end with a reunion for Avengers 3, when Thanos is about to attack.
I don't know what possible role Evans could have for Thor 3, since we already know for sure the title is Thor: Ragnarok and happens simultaneously to the Civil War.
gorgon wrote:Kinda looks like Marvel throwing the baby out with the bathwater in the name of establishing that Spidey is "theirs."
gorgon wrote: Kinda feels like Marvel's focus is on "reclaiming" Spidey, whereas we just want it to look cool.
They're reclaiming it (even though he isn't really theirs) by making it look like he does in the comic books: tick-style logo on the back, black outlined eyes that emote, McFarlane-style stubby spider logo on his chest, etc.
On top of all of that, it looks like he's wearing a sleek bodysuit, much like he does in the comics, as opposed to a deflated basketball like he has in the other movies.
Personally I don't care much for whatever kind of rebranding they may be trying to do with the new look, I like it! The classic look feels nice and I particularly like with the shutter-esque lenses instead of the big mirrored ones like the previous designs.
What the hell is going on here? What films should I watch to catch up?
I thought CA1 was childish BS. 2 was a bit better. Iron man 1 was very good but 2-3 were gak.
Spiderman - all of them I hated.
The famous 4 I hated too.
Is this film completely seperate to the Apocalypse film?
Sheeesh, Not sure whats going on with Marvel now! Anyone explain? (Why isnt Hulk in this one? Wasnt he in IM3?> ?
Ratius wrote: Not a massive comic book fan/follower.
What the hell is going on here? What films should I watch to catch up?
I thought CA1 was childish BS. 2 was a bit better. Iron man 1 was very good but 2-3 were gak.
Spiderman - all of them I hated.
The famous 4 I hated too.
Is this film completely seperate to the Apocalypse film?
Sheeesh, Not sure whats going on with Marvel now! Anyone explain? (Why isnt Hulk in this one? Wasnt he in IM3?> ?
Spiderman, Fantastic 4, and Apocalypse are all from different studios, and completely unrelated.
The movie you would want to see would probably be Avengers 2. That one's the most recent in the main series, and explains where the Hulk is.
They're Marvel, but they're (the movies, and plots of said movies, not the characters) made by Fox and Sony respectively and not by Disney and Marvel main (the ones behind the MCU).
The Spiderman in this movie is different to the Spiderman in the recent reboot Sony did... (which has been cancelled to be replaced by another reboot with this new Spiderman iirc)
what they are trying to say is that
one company does the x-men movies
one company does spider-man
one company (disney) does the primary marvel movies that are all connected
while they all use Marvel comic characters, because they're done by different movie studios, they aren't all connected together
Forget the X-men movies (all of them). Forget the Spiderman films. Forget anything Batman or Superman.
The order of the films is:
Iron Man
Iron Man 2/The Incredible Hulk/Thor (these films happen all roughly simultaneously)
Captain America: The First Avenger (mostly in WWII, but the end of it takes place after the other four films)
The Avengers
Iron Man 3 (you could realistically skip this and miss literally nothing - no film since has referenced it, plus it's the worst Marvel film of the whole series)
Thor: The Dark World
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy (you could, but shouldn't, skip this one - it's overall plot does not tie into the rest of them... yet)
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Ant-Man
Captain America: Civil War
As we progress each film becomes more and more connected to the last, so Winter Soldier is essentially Avengers 2.5, with a bunch of characters introduced in Age of Ultron appearing in this one. Ant-Man is also in Civil War. Spiderman in this one has no relation to the old Spidey films at all. This is a completely new Spiderman.
A new Spiderman film is coming, it's being made by Sony, but it's part of the MCU.
As we progress each film becomes more and more connected to the last, so Winter Soldier is essentially Avengers 2.5, with a bunch of characters introduced in Age of Ultron appearing in this one. Ant-Man is also in Civil War. Spiderman in this one has no relation to the old Spidey films at all. This is a completely new Spiderman.
As a Cap fan, I would have liked to have seen this story as a proper Avengers film, and this film saved for a proper Cap-focused story. People can say that he'll be a central character in this film, but I don't see how he won't get lost in his own film given the cast of thousands. Old Avengers and new Avengers with Ant-Man...and now Spidey too! Oh yeah...and Cap.
Forget the X-men movies (all of them). Forget the Spiderman films. Forget anything Batman or Superman.
The order of the films is:
Iron Man
Iron Man 2/The Incredible Hulk/Thor (these films happen all roughly simultaneously)
Captain America: The First Avenger (mostly in WWII, but the end of it takes place after the other four films)
The Avengers
Iron Man 3 (you could realistically skip this and miss literally nothing - no film since has referenced it, plus it's the worst Marvel film of the whole series)
Thor: The Dark World
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy (you could, but shouldn't, skip this one - it's overall plot does not tie into the rest of them... yet)
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Ant-Man
Captain America: Civil War
As we progress each film becomes more and more connected to the last, so Winter Soldier is essentially Avengers 2.5, with a bunch of characters introduced in Age of Ultron appearing in this one. Ant-Man is also in Civil War. Spiderman in this one has no relation to the old Spidey films at all. This is a completely new Spiderman.
A new Spiderman film is coming, it's being made by Sony, but it's part of the MCU.
Forget the X-men movies (all of them). Forget the Spiderman films. Forget anything Batman or Superman.
The order of the films is:
Iron Man
Iron Man 2/The Incredible Hulk/Thor (these films happen all roughly simultaneously)
Captain America: The First Avenger (mostly in WWII, but the end of it takes place after the other four films)
The Avengers
Iron Man 3 (you could realistically skip this and miss literally nothing - no film since has referenced it, plus it's the worst Marvel film of the whole series)
Thor: The Dark World
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy (you could, but shouldn't, skip this one - it's overall plot does not tie into the rest of them... yet)
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Ant-Man
Captain America: Civil War
As we progress each film becomes more and more connected to the last, so Winter Soldier is essentially Avengers 2.5, with a bunch of characters introduced in Age of Ultron appearing in this one. Ant-Man is also in Civil War. Spiderman in this one has no relation to the old Spidey films at all. This is a completely new Spiderman.
X-men/Deadpool: 1 Universe, with some alternate timelines.
Baragash wrote: Technically Norton Hulk fits in their somewhere too
1. There's no 'technically' about it. The Incredible Hulk is part of the MCU. Hell, General Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross, played by William Hurt, From The Incredible Hulk, is in Civil War.
2. I included it in my list.
As we progress each film becomes more and more connected to the last, so Winter Soldier is essentially Avengers 2.5, with a bunch of characters introduced in Age of Ultron appearing in this one. Ant-Man is also in Civil War. Spiderman in this one has no relation to the old Spidey films at all. This is a completely new Spiderman.
As a Cap fan, I would have liked to have seen this story as a proper Avengers film, and this film saved for a proper Cap-focused story. People can say that he'll be a central character in this film, but I don't see how he won't get lost in his own film given the cast of thousands. Old Avengers and new Avengers with Ant-Man...and now Spidey too! Oh yeah...and Cap.
I was pretty excited about the fake out Serpent Society Cap film. Would have preferred they leave Civil War for an Avengers film after Infinity War, but Evans and RDJ might not want to do more by then at all.
Baragash wrote: Technically Norton Hulk fits in their somewhere too
1. There's no 'technically' about it. The Incredible Hulk is part of the MCU. Hell, General Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross, played by William Hurt, From The Incredible Hulk, is in Civil War.
2. I included it in my list.
Weird, I read your list twice and missed it, my bad
As we progress each film becomes more and more connected to the last, so Winter Soldier is essentially Avengers 2.5, with a bunch of characters introduced in Age of Ultron appearing in this one. Ant-Man is also in Civil War. Spiderman in this one has no relation to the old Spidey films at all. This is a completely new Spiderman.
As a Cap fan, I would have liked to have seen this story as a proper Avengers film, and this film saved for a proper Cap-focused story. People can say that he'll be a central character in this film, but I don't see how he won't get lost in his own film given the cast of thousands. Old Avengers and new Avengers with Ant-Man...and now Spidey too! Oh yeah...and Cap.
I was pretty excited about the fake out Serpent Society Cap film. Would have preferred they leave Civil War for an Avengers film after Infinity War, but Evans and RDJ might not want to do more by then at all.
I think that's a big reason for doing it now. Actors aren't getting any younger and might want to be done with these films.
I disagree with the bit slamming IM3. While certainly not the greatest film out there, it definitely has a place, and a rather important one (IMO). In the 3 IM movies, I personally dislike 2 the most. While visually appealing Whiplash isn't as important a baddie as really anyone from IM3, despite how much they botched AIM.
Out of all the ones H.B.M.C listed, I find The Incredible Hulk and the two Thor fims to be the weakest (annoyingly, Thor is probably the one with the most relevance to Avengers Assemble).
It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Out of all the ones H.B.M.C listed, I find The Incredible Hulk and the two Thor fims to be the weakest (annoyingly, Thor is probably the one with the most relevance to Avengers Assemble).
It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
I think the cast for that movie was amazing. The way the movie was shot was just horrendous though.
timetowaste85 wrote: IM3 played an important role in Stark's personal growth. But the whole movie was so disnified it was insulting.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I disagree with the bit slamming IM3. While certainly not the greatest film out there, it definitely has a place, and a rather important one (IMO). In the 3 IM movies, I personally dislike 2 the most. While visually appealing Whiplash isn't as important a baddie as really anyone from IM3, despite how much they botched AIM.
As I said, the events in IM3 have not been referenced in any film since. The film was almost as if Shane Black wanted to make another film with RDJ, but begrudgingly had to include Marvel things to get it made.
But anyway, these do a better job of explaining what's wrong with IM3 than I ever could:
... with the exception of the Mk.42 armour. So... you have a suit of armour where every single piece has to have:
1. It's own internal power source. 2. It's own flight system. 3. It's own guidence system.
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU, and that's before we even get into things like the fact that Talbot dies in Ang Lee's Hung, yet he's a character that's alive and well in the MCU (and played by Adrian Pasdar, who often voices Iron Man in the cartoons).
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU, and that's before we even get into things like the fact that Talbot dies in Ang Lee's Hung, yet he's a character that's alive and well in the MCU (and played by Adrian Pasdar, who often voices Iron Man in the cartoons).
To clarify- this is the current version of Talbot (Adrian Pasdar) who looks pretty close to the comics
This is the guy (Josh Lucas) used in Ang Lee's crappy 2003 movie. who looks absolutely nothing like the comics
AndrewGPaul wrote: Out of all the ones H.B.M.C listed, I find The Incredible Hulk and the two Thor fims to be the weakest (annoyingly, Thor is probably the one with the most relevance to Avengers Assemble).
It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
So far, for me Guardians of the Galaxy and Cap A 1 were the weakest of the new crop of Marvel films- with Guardians still a long way ahead of Cap A 1 which is really poor - so different to the fantastic sequel.
... with the exception of the Mk.42 armour. So... you have a suit of armour where every single piece has to have:
1. It's own internal power source.
2. It's own flight system.
3. It's own guidance system.
How is that at all a practical idea?
Er Tony does not care about practicality - If he is having fun - then the world is good to go - he builds Iron man suits cos he enjoys it.
I liked a lot of IM3 but it was the weakest of the series imo.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU, and that's before we even get into things like the fact that Talbot dies in Ang Lee's Hung, yet he's a character that's alive and well in the MCU (and played by Adrian Pasdar, who often voices Iron Man in the cartoons).
I never said it was "officially" part of the continuity; just that there wasn't anything to prevent it (other than a fact I'd forgotten, clearly, so let's leave it at that ). It's still better than the one with Edward Norton in, though.
I'm not convinced about a resemblance between Adrian Pasdar and that comic panel, though.
Iron Man 3 introduced Tony Stark's PTSD from Avengers, which carried through into Avengers 2 (and CA3, by the looks of things, too). And kicked off Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU, and that's before we even get into things like the fact that Talbot dies in Ang Lee's Hung, yet he's a character that's alive and well in the MCU (and played by Adrian Pasdar, who often voices Iron Man in the cartoons).
Yeah, but to be fair, it clearly wasn't a full reboot in the same way that Spidey keeps getting rebooted. The word "requel" was even thrown around at the time. Hulk isn't a unique case, though. Was Batman Forever a sequel to Batman Returns? I dunno...Alfred stayed the same, but everyone and everything else changed. *shrug*
Studios like sequels because there's guaranteed audience and they probably require less marketing. So if they can do a creative refresh but still position a film as a sorta-sequel, it's a win-win for them.
Just look at the Ghostbusters trailers. "Thirty years ago stuff happened"...which has no bearing on the events of this movie, but if you think it does and buy a ticket, they're okay with that.
timetowaste85 wrote: IM3 played an important role in Stark's personal growth. But the whole movie was so disnified it was insulting.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I disagree with the bit slamming IM3. While certainly not the greatest film out there, it definitely has a place, and a rather important one (IMO). In the 3 IM movies, I personally dislike 2 the most. While visually appealing Whiplash isn't as important a baddie as really anyone from IM3, despite how much they botched AIM.
As I said, the events in IM3 have not been referenced in any film since. The film was almost as if Shane Black wanted to make another film with RDJ, but begrudgingly had to include Marvel things to get it made.
... with the exception of the Mk.42 armour. So... you have a suit of armour where every single piece has to have:
1. It's own internal power source.
2. It's own flight system.
3. It's own guidence system.
How is that at all a practical idea?
You are correct on the suit issue.... but I think the bigger "issue" or theme of IM3 is not Mandarin (who, like everyone else, I think they botched, unless they botched him on purpose to reveal that he is the real Mandarin because of "Hail to the King" short and he will reappear in a later MCU film?) or even the portrayal of AIM.
I think the thing that IM3 is really good for, despite not being mentioned, is that Tony clearly has PTSD. It's a relevant issue in today's world, and he is trying to deal with it as any playboy billionaire philanthropist would: he builds more and more suits. The movie is about how he deals with PTSD, how it is ultimately ineffectual to treat it on his own the way he did, etc. I personally am OK with glossing over the terrible Mandarin schtick that shouldn't be schtick, and can gloss over AIM as well.
-As for the others, I agree that Ed Norton's Hulk character was better than the Eric Bana version, I am just glad we haven't had a Mark Ruffalo "origin" movie... It's almost as if MCU has realized from Sony's crap that people by now know the Hulk's origin story, you don't need to refilm it despite having a new actor. I think that Ruffalo does excellent as Hulk, but Ed Norton made a better Banner/Hulk combo. I'm sorry, but Ruffalo doesn't really look very scientist-like to me.
To your point about Ruffalo Hulk, we're seeing a not-quite-the-same-but-similar thing with Batman in BvS. They don't need another origin story for the DCEU Batman. It's freakin' Batman, everyone knows who he is and why.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU, and that's before we even get into things like the fact that Talbot dies in Ang Lee's Hung, yet he's a character that's alive and well in the MCU (and played by Adrian Pasdar, who often voices Iron Man in the cartoons).
I never said it was "officially" part of the continuity; just that there wasn't anything to prevent it (other than a fact I'd forgotten, clearly, so let's leave it at that ). It's still better than the one with Edward Norton in, though.
I'm not convinced about a resemblance between Adrian Pasdar and that comic panel, though.
Iron Man 3 introduced Tony Stark's PTSD from Avengers, which carried through into Avengers 2 (and CA3, by the looks of things, too). And kicked off Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Oh God, Ang Lee's Hulk movie (the first one with Bana) was the second worst (at the time) marvel movie, being better than only Elektra. Even Daredevil, Ghost Rider, and the first FF movie (which I actually LIKED) were better. The Edward Norton version was a thousand times better. And I think the movie version of Abomination was far superior to every cartoon version ever, where he's always a dumb henchman and nothing more. This at least made him a credible threat. Did we even watch the same versions of these movies?!
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's still better than the one with Edward Norton in, though.
Said no one else. Ever.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Iron Man 3 introduced Tony Stark's PTSD from Avengers, which carried through into Avengers 2 (and CA3, by the looks of things, too). And kicked off Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
1. PTSD, never brought up again.
2. Avengers kicked off AoS, not IM3.
The first couple of episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. had them chasing up leftover bits of Extremis research, IIRC. Not surprising, since Iron Man 3 was the last Marvel film to come out before AoS began.
AndrewGPaul wrote: The first couple of episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. had them chasing up leftover bits of Extremis research, IIRC. Not surprising, since Iron Man 3 was the last Marvel film to come out before AoS began.
Partially. Iirc it was a mixture of extremis, super solider knock off, and gamma stuff. Kind of a whole Avengers in a bottle thing.
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's still better than the one with Edward Norton in, though.
Said no one else. Ever.
I'll say it. Hulk had its problems, and Lee tried too hard to elevate the material. He's since admitted that he should have cut back on all the psychological stuff. But at least he tried.
On the other hand, The Incredible Hulk was typical of Marvel's worse efforts -- polished, professional, by-the-numbers, bland and soulless.
A lot of The Incredible Hulk's failings were down to Edward Norton's interfering with the movie in production. Which is part of why Marvel got rid of him.
angelofvengeance wrote: A lot of The Incredible Hulk's failings were down to Edward Norton's interfering with the movie in production. Which is part of why Marvel got rid of him.
Norton's a notoriously difficult person to work with, so it's unsurprising things turned out the way they did.
angelofvengeance wrote: A lot of The Incredible Hulk's failings were down to Edward Norton's interfering with the movie in production.
LOL.
On one hand, you have Norton, a well-regarded actor with 3 Academy Award nominations under his belt. On the other hand you have the director of Clash of the Titans, Now You See Me, and The Brothers Grimsby.
I know who I'd listen to, and if Marvel had -- or picked a better director in the first place -- they might have ended up with a better film.
Here's one explanation of what went down, which makes it sound like it was about creative differences and wasn't overly hostile or about Norton being a jerk.
AndrewGPaul wrote: On the subject of Civil War, that penultimate trailer shot of both sides running at each other is really silly. The context had better be good.
It is the scene that they have to put in there so that they can show off the cast on posters. Just like in the Avengers movies they had all of the avengers circle up and pose for the camera.
Elecktra was terribad. Even the daredevil movie had aspects I liked, like I loved Micheal Clark Duncan as the king pin. I couldn't even finish elektra and I tried twice
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU, and that's before we even get into things like the fact that Talbot dies in Ang Lee's Hung, yet he's a character that's alive and well in the MCU (and played by Adrian Pasdar, who often voices Iron Man in the cartoons).
I never said it was "officially" part of the continuity; just that there wasn't anything to prevent it (other than a fact I'd forgotten, clearly, so let's leave it at that ). It's still better than the one with Edward Norton in, though.
I'm not convinced about a resemblance between Adrian Pasdar and that comic panel, though.
Iron Man 3 introduced Tony Stark's PTSD from Avengers, which carried through into Avengers 2 (and CA3, by the looks of things, too). And kicked off Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Oh God, Ang Lee's Hulk movie (the first one with Bana) was the second worst (at the time) marvel movie, being better than only Elektra. Even Daredevil, Ghost Rider, and the first FF movie (which I actually LIKED) were better. The Edward Norton version was a thousand times better. And I think the movie version of Abomination was far superior to every cartoon version ever, where he's always a dumb henchman and nothing more. This at least made him a credible threat. Did we even watch the same versions of these movies?!
I would have to disagree. Ang Lee tried to raise the bar on a comic book movie, with innovative visuals and an actual issue focused storyline. This is not something MCU has tried since.
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's still better than the one with Edward Norton in, though.
Said no one else. Ever.
I'll say it. Hulk had its problems, and Lee tried too hard to elevate the material. He's since admitted that he should have cut back on all the psychological stuff. But at least he tried.
On the other hand, The Incredible Hulk was typical of Marvel's worse efforts -- polished, professional, by-the-numbers, bland and soulless.
Frazzled wrote: I would have to disagree. Ang Lee tried to raise the bar on a comic book movie, with innovative visuals and an actual issue focused storyline. This is not something MCU has tried since.
Winter Soldier said "Hi!", and while it was here it also pointed out that Ang Lee's Hulk was a terrible film.
I would have to disagree. Ang Lee tried to raise the bar on a comic book movie, with innovative visuals and an actual issue focused storyline. This is not something MCU has tried since.
Issues (arms trade, responsability, the role and nature of governments, privacy. ethics,) have arisen in all the recent MCU movies, if you have missed them........well......guess need to watch them again.
Saw it, thoroughly enjoyed it, but I'm probably the target audience (recognise the characters enough to get excited, don't know them well enough to nitpick)
I saw it. Probably my 2nd fave film in the MCU after Cap2. Banter was good, considerably better than Avengers. I would watch a buddy cop show set in the MCU that just revolves around Falcon and Winter soldier. Ending made me really want a cap4
The banter was better because it wasn't constant. AoU suffered mostly because it's heroes (and villain) never shut up with the quips. It reduced the tension to basically nothing, and even reduced the stakes as everyone seemed to be joking about everything.
