It was available On Demand so rented it this weekend. Not quite Imax like I originally planned, but I do have an 80 inch TV with a $1500 Martin Logan soundbar.
I have to admit, maybe it was kinda more my mood, or maybe it was from being spoiled, but I felt like I was being too critical out of the gate. Maybe it was rushing over the whole Asgardian stuff that annoyed me (I knew this is how the movie would start out, but Thor is one of my favorite characters and wiping out that part of the MCU has never been something I appreciated). Loki's death felt hollow, especially for a character who has been in so many movies. And once that was rushed through, I didn't feel much of a loss for others as that happened. Just felt like stage props.
Stark and Dr Strange were awesome. I really, really hope these two get more screen time being sarcastic with each other. As a matter of fact, if the original Avengers were to disappear, Dr Strange may be my favorite character. Cumberbatch is doing an amazing job with him.
HATE the nano suits. From Black Panther to Iron Man to Spiderman. I know its an evolution of the costumes, saves time and kids prob think its cool, but I hate them. Forming guns or spider legs from nothing is just too much for me.
Loved the Guardians. They are my favorite team. I was immediately reminded about the whole James Gunn thing and how disappointed I am with that. I am sure Marvel will manage to carry on and put out a decent Guardians 3 film, but I would have preferred Gunn's interpretation. I am probably one of the few who thinks Guardians 2 was better than 1, and would have loved to see how that team evolved under his story.
There was a lot going on in Infinity War, and I don't want to sound critical of how fast things went, as I totally get what this took and it was amazing that Marvel even pulled it off. To have so many movies come down to this is truly impressive. I did feel like I wanted more Captain America and so on, and I know we still have one more film to go to conclude this story, so hopefully I get it. I also had a hard time hearing everything everyone was saying. Sometimes I had to back up and play it over using closed captions to be sure.
I am not ready to let these characters go. I really wish they would go on forever. And the worst part I felt while watching the film was that I almost felt like I was watching the MCU jump the shark. While I have been amazed with Ant Man, Guardians, Dr Strange and so on, I am not sure how you top this. Both in story and character count. To try to beat it would seem like trying too hard, and to not have more at stake would be a let down. But I guess we'll see. I just can't imagine a Marvel Universe without Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor, so I hope they all don't die. I also are aware that going forward there will be a push for more diversity in the MCU and I hope its not pandering and forced.
They have really set the bar high with this. The ending was brilliant and the best anyone could do knowing that there are sequels out there for some of the characters who turned to dust.
Since the movie rental was good for 3 days I just played it over and over again over the weekend until I was sick of seeing it on the TV. Didn't sit and watch every time, just had it on while doing chores or whatever. Gave me a chance to see details in the background I might have missed the first time, and so on. Its such an ambitious movie (and can only imagine what was involved producing and scheduling everything), and I am glad they did it even though its not my favorite MCU film.
Thanos is awesome. Not quite as good as Darth Vader as far as who has the top spot, but I liked his motivations. Never once did I not believe in the CGI. Seeing the sunlight pierce thru the trees and onto parts of his clothes was pretty impressive. I hope they do not kill him. I am tired of seeing MCU villains getting killed off.
Before mourning any of the dead characters, remember that this is Marvel. In the comic books, characters return from the dead so often Death had to install a revolving door.
It is an excellent movie, and is pretty much one of a kind; no movie has taken such an all-star cast, with SO many characters and made such a success with that many famous people on a single screen. Not only that, but the good guys lost. Hard. Most movies haven’t touched on that since Empire Strikes Back. It will go down as a monumental movie as revolutionary.
Vulcan wrote: Before mourning any of the dead characters, remember that this is Marvel. In the comic books, characters return from the dead so often Death had to install a revolving door.
Yeah but...this is Movie Marvel, and some of these actors want out, so...quite a few perma-deaths are coming once it is all said and done, and the dust has been...reconstituted and then settles again.
timetowaste85 wrote: It is an excellent movie, and is pretty much one of a kind; no movie has taken such an all-star cast, with SO many characters and made such a success with that many famous people on a single screen. Not only that, but the good guys lost. Hard. Most movies haven’t touched on that since Empire Strikes Back. It will go down as a monumental movie as revolutionary.
Pretty much this.
So many balls to juggle, and from films of different tones. It could’ve been a horrific mess of disparate plotlines. But the Russo’s pulled it off. And just like Civil War, nobody was acting against type, which was nice.
timetowaste85 wrote: It is an excellent movie, and is pretty much one of a kind; no movie has taken such an all-star cast, with SO many characters and made such a success with that many famous people on a single screen. Not only that, but the good guys lost. Hard. Most movies haven’t touched on that since Empire Strikes Back. It will go down as a monumental movie as revolutionary.
Massive all star casts were a thing in the past. Two excellent WW2 movies, “The Longest Day” and “A Bridge Too Far” spring to mind. So having a huge cast of characters played by famous actors isn’t that revolutionary.
What was unique about a Infinity War is that it’s the (I think) 19th movie in a franchise that still going strong. That means that it doesn’t actually rely, unlike the all star casts of the past, on getting the audience to care about the characters because they recognise and like the actors. Instead we have a cast of developed characters that many members of the audience have spent 10 years getting to know.
Just as long as nobody wonders , during the fight over the gauntlet, why Doc Strange didn't open a sling ring portal, have them get Thanos' arm through it and then shut it to lop the gauntlet off his arm.
Preferrably to fall out of another portal to land in a heros' arms. Because the huge weakness of the Infinity Gauntlet is that you kinda have to have a left hand to use it.
AegisGrimm wrote: Just as long as nobody wonders , during the fight over the gauntlet, why Doc Strange didn't open a sling ring portal, have them get Thanos' arm through it and then shut it to lop the gauntlet off his arm.
Preferrably to fall out of another portal to land in a heros' arms. Because the huge weakness of the Infinity Gauntlet is that you kinda have to have a left hand to use it.
Because that plan would have ended in something worse. Tony stark with the gauntlet or some gak. Strange says very specifically, this was the only way they end up winning.
I was never into Marvel comics, so the villian pecking order in that universe is unkown to me. Is there anyone above Thanos?
I think the movie was clear about him as an eco-terrorist on a galactic scale, but I kept thinking that he was trying to reduce life for another purpose. Like could he have done what he did to prevent the awakening of another being, once life in the galaxy/universe reaches a certain point? Didn’t Silver Surfer work for a dude that ate planets or some such? Maybe I played too much Mass Effect.
I didn’t really care for his motivations. All the power in the universe and dude couldn’t create more resources to prevent the futures he envisioned? Or go back in time and teach burgeoning civilizations how to harness renewable resources before they became unsustainable? Nah, lets just kill half of eveything and do this again in another few generations? I know he’s a villian, but I’m hoping there is more to the sacrifices he made and forced on others.
It was crazy seeing Carrie ** [see forum posting rules] ** as Proxima Midnight, after seeing her on the last season of Fargo and this season of The Sinner.
**Apparently her last name is verboten. I mean , I get why but feth, not even allowing context? Goes straight to a rules violation? First time thats ever happened since I used this forum. Kind of insulting.
Thanks for the contribution DD. Excellent as always. *sigh*
KTG17 wrote: Maybe it was rushing over the whole Asgardian stuff that annoyed me (I knew this is how the movie would start out, but Thor is one of my favorite characters and wiping out that part of the MCU has never been something I appreciated).
Difficult to criticise this film for that though.
Asgard was destroyed in Ragnarok, and what was on that ship was basically the last remnant of that civilisation, and even then half of them survived. They're not completely gone, just mostly gone, and most of that occurred in a different film.
KTG17 wrote: Loki's death felt hollow, especially for a character who has been in so many movies.
He had reached the end of his journey IMO. He had finally moved past his attempts to leave his brother, accepted his role as part of Asgard rather than trying to break away from it or rule it, and so did what he could to free himself (and his people) of the one part of his life he could never run away from (the Outsider said as much to Loki in Avengers - no matter where you go, we will find you).
And then he failed. It's tragic, but I wouldn't call it hollow.
nels1031 wrote: It was crazy seeing Carrie ** [see forum posting rules] ** as Proxima Midnight, after seeing her on the last season of Fargo and this season of The Sinner.
**Apparently her last name is verboten. I mean , I get why but feth, not even allowing context? Goes straight to a rules violation? First time thats ever happened since I used this forum. Kind of insulting.
Once upon a time the world filter was so stringent you couldn't use the word "glass".
AegisGrimm wrote: Just as long as nobody wonders , during the fight over the gauntlet, why Doc Strange didn't open a sling ring portal, have them get Thanos' arm through it and then shut it to lop the gauntlet off his arm.
Preferrably to fall out of another portal to land in a heros' arms. Because the huge weakness of the Infinity Gauntlet is that you kinda have to have a left hand to use it.
Because that plan would have ended in something worse. Tony stark with the gauntlet or some gak. Strange says very specifically, this was the only way they end up winning.
Oh, I know. It was always a joke with my friends, though as such a thing seems to be such a trope when wormholes/portals are involved.
nels1031 wrote:It was crazy seeing Carrie ** [see forum posting rules] ** as Proxima Midnight, after seeing her on the last season of Fargo and this season of The Sinner.
**Apparently her last name is verboten. I mean , I get why but feth, not even allowing context? Goes straight to a rules violation? First time thats ever happened since I used this forum. Kind of insulting.
Once upon a time the world filter was so stringent you couldn't use the word "glass".
The changing of the word is automatic, as is the [see forum posting rules] insert.
nels1031 wrote:It was crazy seeing Carrie ** [see forum posting rules] ** as Proxima Midnight, after seeing her on the last season of Fargo and this season of The Sinner.
**Apparently her last name is verboten. I mean , I get why but feth, not even allowing context? Goes straight to a rules violation? First time thats ever happened since I used this forum. Kind of insulting.
Once upon a time the world filter was so stringent you couldn't use the word "glass".
The changing of the word is automatic, as is the [see forum posting rules] insert.
Unless you got a warning for it too?
I’m trying to remember the game recently that had a word filter on character names that would disallow an entry if any part of the word triggered it, like that Glass up there, and then give you a warning telling you the exact portion of the word it didn’t like, therein teaching kids new swears.
AegisGrimm wrote: Just as long as nobody wonders , during the fight over the gauntlet, why Doc Strange didn't open a sling ring portal, have them get Thanos' arm through it and then shut it to lop the gauntlet off his arm.
Preferrably to fall out of another portal to land in a heros' arms. Because the huge weakness of the Infinity Gauntlet is that you kinda have to have a left hand to use it.
Because that plan would have ended in something worse. Tony stark with the gauntlet or some gak. Strange says very specifically, this was the only way they end up winning.
Oh, I know. It was always a joke with my friends, though as such a thing seems to be such a trope when wormholes/portals are involved.
The frustrating thing is that Wong did the very same thing to Obsidian earlier in the movie (cutting off his left hand with a portal). I get that Strange may have seen this outcome and it didn't turn out well for the heroes for...reasons. But from a movie standpoint, the setup was there and an obvious solution to the audience. A throw away line explaining why he couldn't do it could have resolved it. Really my only complaint with the movie
Or maybe he saw him try and noticed it didn't work. Same as Eldar farseers in path of the seer. Just keep trying different stratégies untill you find a winning one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't really mind the powers and their limits not being explained. They are so out there anyway as long we don't get anime style: stand still for name calling, I'm fine with it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Thanks for the contribution DD. Excellent as always. *sigh*
Dude what is your problem. I swear I see more condescending posts from you than any one else.
I think it's cuz DD only added three names of movies, none of which actually had this MANY famous names, and he added no actual conversation to the topic. Yes, Brad Pitt is a bigger name than Chris Evans. But the Oceans movies having like 8 big names don't compare to Infinity Wars having 40 big names. The three Chris's, Vin Diesel, Hiddleston, Cumberbatch, ScarJo, Paltrow, Cooper, RDJr, Zoe Saldana, Batista, Brolin, etc. The names keep going in this film; no film out there has this MANY big names, even if some films have multiple bigger names. Not only does it have this many names, it has a solid script to back it up too; there is a reason this film will go down in infamy. Even if it's not the strongest script in the world (and it isn't), it has done something monumental that nobody has seen before on this scale.
timetowaste85 wrote: I think it's cuz DD only added three names of movies, none of which actually had this MANY famous names, and he added no actual conversation to the topic. Yes, Brad Pitt is a bigger name than Chris Evans. But the Oceans movies having like 8 big names don't compare to Infinity Wars having 40 big names. The three Chris's, Vin Diesel, Hiddleston, Cumberbatch, ScarJo, Paltrow, Cooper, RDJr, Zoe Saldana, Batista, Brolin, etc. The names keep going in this film; no film out there has this MANY big names, even if some films have multiple bigger names. Not only does it have this many names, it has a solid script to back it up too; there is a reason this film will go down in infamy. Even if it's not the strongest script in the world (and it isn't), it has done something monumental that nobody has seen before on this scale.
When someone says "massive all star casts were a thing of a past", and I can immediately name at least 3 counter-examples, then that's plenty enough to falsify the claim. No more needed to be said.
The Expendables had every action hero ever, including ALL of the heavyweights like Li, Lungren, Schwarzenegger, Statham, Stallone, Van Damme, etc., etc. Oceans had real stars with Clooney, Pitt and Roberts.
IW was a great movie, but let's not fall all over ourselves. RDJ is only an A-lister due to the Marvel movies. ScarJo is a C-lister outside her bit parts supporting a leading man (actually, she's poison - her solo movies are fething garbage). Diesel is big, but you don't even see him! Etc. The vast bulk of the actors are C/D-listers that would never carry a film. A Batista movie? Get real.
If your definition of "big" is tautological, as in "having appeared in a movie (i.e. IW) that subsequently got big", then any given season of the Simpsons has more "big names" than Infinity War. Or Tropic Thunder. / Something About Mary. And for the record, Tropic Thunder is a better ensemble movie than Infinity War.
Minority opinion -- Infinity War was a fairly terrible movie in *many* ways.
It was good entertainment and a good installment of a long-running serial, mind you. But if you try to look at it through a normal 'movie' lens, or even a normal sequel lens...egads, it'd be an incomprehensible mess.
Goes to show you how unique this thing that Marvel created really is.
AegisGrimm wrote: Just as long as nobody wonders , during the fight over the gauntlet, why Doc Strange didn't open a sling ring portal, have them get Thanos' arm through it and then shut it to lop the gauntlet off his arm.
Preferrably to fall out of another portal to land in a heros' arms. Because the huge weakness of the Infinity Gauntlet is that you kinda have to have a left hand to use it.
Because that plan would have ended in something worse. Tony stark with the gauntlet or some gak. Strange says very specifically, this was the only way they end up winning.
Oh, I know. It was always a joke with my friends, though as such a thing seems to be such a trope when wormholes/portals are involved.
The frustrating thing is that Wong did the very same thing to Obsidian earlier in the movie (cutting off his left hand with a portal).
I get that Strange may have seen this outcome and it didn't turn out well for the heroes for...reasons.
But from a movie standpoint, the setup was there and an obvious solution to the audience. A throw away line explaining why he couldn't do it could have resolved it.
Really my only complaint with the movie
-
There was a throw away line. During the fight, even when peter quill was having his melt down, dr. Strange said NOTHING. And then, when all was said and done, dr strange said " im sorry tony, this was the only way..."
When someone says "massive all star casts were a thing of a past", and I can immediately name at least 3 counter-examples, then that's plenty enough to falsify the claim. No more needed to be said.
I didn’t say, “massive all star casts were a thing of a past”, because that makes no grammatical sense.
Nor did I say, “massive all star casts are a thing of the past” ie, not a thing in the present (which is what, I think, you’re trying to claim I said).
What I actually said was, “massive all star casts were a thing in the past”, ie it’s been done before.
You’re attempting to refute a claim that was never made.
gorgon wrote: Minority opinion -- Infinity War was a fairly terrible movie in *many* ways.
It was good entertainment and a good installment of a long-running serial, mind you. But if you try to look at it through a normal 'movie' lens, or even a normal sequel lens...egads, it'd be an incomprehensible mess.
Goes to show you how unique this thing that Marvel created really is.
Agreed. Throwing words like "unique" and "revolutionary" around in the context of this movie is stretching things beyond credulity IMO. I enjoyed it immensely, but it's just a popcorn blockbuster that would render anyone who hadn't watched a decent chunk of the preceding body of work completely clueless as to what was happening or what the implications were for long sections.
Ok, it's a rare that a movie with this much anticipation from the fan base isn't a significant let down, and this really wasn't a let down IMO, but viewed in isolation it's a hugely flawed movie that relies massively on the assumotion that its audience is educated on the topic.
gorgon wrote: Minority opinion -- Infinity War was a fairly terrible movie in *many* ways.
It was good entertainment and a good installment of a long-running serial, mind you. But if you try to look at it through a normal 'movie' lens, or even a normal sequel lens...egads, it'd be an incomprehensible mess.
Goes to show you how unique this thing that Marvel created really is.
Agreed. Throwing words like "unique" and "revolutionary" around in the context of this movie is stretching things beyond credulity IMO. I enjoyed it immensely, but it's just a popcorn blockbuster that would render anyone who hadn't watched a decent chunk of the preceding body of work completely clueless as to what was happening or what the implications were for long sections.
Ok, it's a rare that a movie with this much anticipation from the fan base isn't a significant let down, and this really wasn't a let down IMO, but viewed in isolation it's a hugely flawed movie that relies massively on the assumotion that its audience is educated on the topic.
I think that’s kind of the point though, Infinity War is not intended to be viewed in isolation. It’s a movie that deliberately, by design, relies on you having seen the previous movies. I don’t think that makes it a flawed movie at all because not doing something you never intended to do isn’t a flaw.
The really revolutionary thing about Infinity War is that it is brave enough to not spend time trying to be accessible to someone who hasn’t seen the previous movies. It’s long form story telling. I don’t think you’d level the same criticism to the season finale of a TV show, because that’s essentially what Infinity War is.
When someone says "massive all star casts were a thing of a past", and I can immediately name at least 3 counter-examples, then that's plenty enough to falsify the claim. No more needed to be said.
I didn’t say, “massive all star casts were a thing of a past”, because that makes no grammatical sense.
Nor did I say, “massive all star casts are a thing of the past” ie, not a thing in the present (which is what, I think, you’re trying to claim I said).
What I actually said was, “massive all star casts were a thing in the past”, ie it’s been done before.
You’re attempting to refute a claim that was never made.
If you are bad at making your point upfront, maybe you shouldn't get all pissy afterward?
Azreal13 wrote: it's just a popcorn blockbuster that would render anyone who hadn't watched a decent chunk of the preceding body of work completely clueless as to what was happening or what the implications were for long sections.
Ok, it's a rare that a movie with this much anticipation from the fan base isn't a significant let down, and this really wasn't a let down IMO, but viewed in isolation it's a hugely flawed movie that relies massively on the assumotion that its audience is educated on the topic.
I think that’s kind of the point though, Infinity War is not intended to be viewed in isolation. It’s a movie that deliberately, by design, relies on you having seen the previous movies.
The really revolutionary thing about Infinity War is that it is brave enough to not spend time trying to be accessible to someone who hasn’t seen the previous movies.
Actually, you guys are both wrong. If you haven't seen the other movies, Marvel does a fantastic job of quickly filling in the gaps so IW is completely accessible if the last Marvel movie you'd seen was Ultron. They don't rely on you having seen all of the previous movies. Hell, you can watch IW without having seen Ragnarok, in the exact same way you can watch Star Wars without having seen Rogue One. Yes, they have to do short form telling instead of long form showing, but it is just enough to quickly get someone up to speed if they hadn't seen Guardians, Civil War, Black Panther and/or Ragnarok. Marvel specifically sets up little mini-exposition scenes to inform each character and the audience in a relatively unobtrusive way. Of course Marvel films move pretty quickly, so it has to be this way, especially in IW, but it's not like they didn't do the same thing with Banner in Ragnarok in case you hadn't seen Civil War.
HATE the nano suits. From Black Panther to Iron Man to Spiderman. I know its an evolution of the costumes, saves time and kids prob think its cool, but I hate them. Forming guns or spider legs from nothing is just too much for me.
Billion times this. Whole suit bonanza has got absurd. It was really stupid already in Iron Man 2 and has got worse ever since. It devalues the character, it devalues his suit, and what is worst, it devalues other characters. Hey, why doesn't Spider-Man use that suit ALL THE TIME? I mean, it is just so much better than his own powers. If Stark can create suits out of nothing like this, where is Black Widow suit? Or Hawkeye suit? They have no powers.
gorgon wrote: Minority opinion -- Infinity War was a fairly terrible movie in *many* ways.
It was good entertainment and a good installment of a long-running serial, mind you. But if you try to look at it through a normal 'movie' lens, or even a normal sequel lens...egads, it'd be an incomprehensible mess.
Goes to show you how unique this thing that Marvel created really is.
Agreed. Throwing words like "unique" and "revolutionary" around in the context of this movie is stretching things beyond credulity IMO. I enjoyed it immensely, but it's just a popcorn blockbuster that would render anyone who hadn't watched a decent chunk of the preceding body of work completely clueless as to what was happening or what the implications were for long sections.
Ok, it's a rare that a movie with this much anticipation from the fan base isn't a significant let down, and this really wasn't a let down IMO, but viewed in isolation it's a hugely flawed movie that relies massively on the assumotion that its audience is educated on the topic.
I think that’s kind of the point though, Infinity War is not intended to be viewed in isolation. It’s a movie that deliberately, by design, relies on you having seen the previous movies. I don’t think that makes it a flawed movie at all because not doing something you never intended to do isn’t a flaw.
The really revolutionary thing about Infinity War is that it is brave enough to not spend time trying to be accessible to someone who hasn’t seen the previous movies. It’s long form story telling. I don’t think you’d level the same criticism to the season finale of a TV show, because that’s essentially what Infinity War is.
Again, that's not really revolutionary is it? I mean that's just describing what a sequel is, the only thing IW did was push the envelope a bit on how much prior knowledge you needed to get everything. That's, almost by definition, evolutionary.
Actually, you guys are both wrong. If you haven't seen the other movies, Marvel does a fantastic job of quickly filling in the gaps so IW is completely accessible if the last Marvel movie you'd seen was Ultron.
I've no way of assessing that claim, as I had seen all but Black Panther when I watched IW, so ima going to go ahead and disagree with you on general principle ok?
When someone says "massive all star casts were a thing of a past", and I can immediately name at least 3 counter-examples, then that's plenty enough to falsify the claim. No more needed to be said.
I didn’t say, “massive all star casts were a thing of a past”, because that makes no grammatical sense.
Nor did I say, “massive all star casts are a thing of the past” ie, not a thing in the present (which is what, I think, you’re trying to claim I said).
What I actually said was, “massive all star casts were a thing in the past”, ie it’s been done before.
You’re attempting to refute a claim that was never made.
If you are bad at making your point upfront, maybe you shouldn't get all pissy afterward?
Or, you know, read what he wrote. You quoted him and still got it wrong. But keep digging your hole, man.
If you had quoted MonkeyBallistic's full statement and not just stopped at the initial sentence you may have understood his point better when he said, "Two excellent WW2 movies, “The Longest Day” and “A Bridge Too Far” spring to mind. So having a huge cast of characters played by famous actors isn’t that revolutionary."
Maybe you were just eager to have a "gotcha" moment with someone? Sucks when that backfires.
KTG17 wrote: HATE the nano suits. From Black Panther to Iron Man to Spiderman. I know its an evolution of the costumes, saves time and kids prob think its cool, but I hate them. Forming guns or spider legs from nothing is just too much for me.
Billion times this. Whole suit bonanza has got absurd. It was really stupid already in Iron Man 2 and has got worse ever since. It devalues the character, it devalues his suit, and what is worst, it devalues other characters. Hey, why doesn't Spider-Man use that suit ALL THE TIME? I mean, it is just so much better than his own powers. If Stark can create suits out of nothing like this, where is Black Widow suit? Or Hawkeye suit? They have no powers.
Hold on. Tony spent most of Iron Man 3 without his suit and did just fine.
Tony specifically addressed the suit question in Spiderman Homecoming:
Tony understands very clearly that the suit simply amplifies the person, and maybe he doesn't want everyone to have suits.
It's the *exact* same answer to "why me?" in Captain America:
KTG17 wrote: HATE the nano suits. From Black Panther to Iron Man to Spiderman. I know its an evolution of the costumes, saves time and kids prob think its cool, but I hate them. Forming guns or spider legs from nothing is just too much for me.
Billion times this. Whole suit bonanza has got absurd. It was really stupid already in Iron Man 2 and has got worse ever since. It devalues the character, it devalues his suit, and what is worst, it devalues other characters. Hey, why doesn't Spider-Man use that suit ALL THE TIME? I mean, it is just so much better than his own powers. If Stark can create suits out of nothing like this, where is Black Widow suit? Or Hawkeye suit? They have no powers.
Hold on. Tony spent most of Iron Man 3 without his suit and did just fine.
I wouldn't bring that film up. Remind me again, what was the end battle in that movie?
Tony specifically addressed the suit question in Spiderman Homecoming:
Also very bad argument as that movie is based on extremely slowed idea of Spider-Man being 'made' by Tony Stark. I'm not even much of a Spider-Man fan, and I find the premise of the movie (and that scene) very insulting.
It's like if Kal-El was actually brought up by Bruce Wayne, who funded and built the Fortress of Solitude.
Tony understands very clearly that the suit simply amplifies the person, and maybe he doesn't want everyone to have suits.
Then maybe he shouldn't make so many of them? It's especially hilarious as in Iron Man 2, Stark precisely made the argument that his suit is fairly unique artifact not easily duplicated (which was the original premise of the suit in comics - same argument which applies to other similarly tech based superheroes and villains) and by the end of the movie there were dozens.
It's infuriating as the character of Stark is perhaps the best in the whole series, Downey does such bang-up job portraying him, and they have completely ruined the suit.
Dude, you've got so much wrong in your replies, it's like you didn't understand anything about the movie references I brought up. For example, S-M:H was specifically about Peter learning *not* to rely on the suit. IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.
I believe he destroys the suits at the end of IM3? The end of Iron Man 2 is the demolition of Mickey Rourke's droids and the only two Iron Men in it are Stark and Rhodes.
It's also a metaphor for his coming to terms with the events in New York, as he'd built them so he'd be ready for anything because he was terrified of what might be next, and also a symbol of his commitment to Pepper because his obsession with building them was damaging their relationship. You are right about Parker in SM:H, and this is where Stark learns that lesson so he can pass it on.
timetowaste85 wrote: It is an excellent movie, and is pretty much one of a kind; no movie has taken such an all-star cast, with SO many characters and made such a success with that many famous people on a single screen. Not only that, but the good guys lost. Hard. Most movies haven’t touched on that since Empire Strikes Back. It will go down as a monumental movie as revolutionary.
See you say that but DC is worrse in that regard lol
I did love infinity war. Cause Thanos was the Protoganist and was a believable and interesting villian.
Sure, his plan is utterly guano, pants on head, Tory voting insane. But the motivation (saving existence from itself) isn’t as twisted as his strength solution suggests.
gorgon wrote: Minority opinion -- Infinity War was a fairly terrible movie in *many* ways.
It was good entertainment and a good installment of a long-running serial, mind you. But if you try to look at it through a normal 'movie' lens, or even a normal sequel lens...egads, it'd be an incomprehensible mess.
Goes to show you how unique this thing that Marvel created really is.
Agreed. Throwing words like "unique" and "revolutionary" around in the context of this movie is stretching things beyond credulity IMO. I enjoyed it immensely, but it's just a popcorn blockbuster that would render anyone who hadn't watched a decent chunk of the preceding body of work completely clueless as to what was happening or what the implications were for long sections.
Ok, it's a rare that a movie with this much anticipation from the fan base isn't a significant let down, and this really wasn't a let down IMO, but viewed in isolation it's a hugely flawed movie that relies massively on the assumotion that its audience is educated on the topic.
I think that’s kind of the point though, Infinity War is not intended to be viewed in isolation. It’s a movie that deliberately, by design, relies on you having seen the previous movies. I don’t think that makes it a flawed movie at all because not doing something you never intended to do isn’t a flaw.
The really revolutionary thing about Infinity War is that it is brave enough to not spend time trying to be accessible to someone who hasn’t seen the previous movies. It’s long form story telling. I don’t think you’d level the same criticism to the season finale of a TV show, because that’s essentially what Infinity War is.
Again, that's not really revolutionary is it? I mean that's just describing what a sequel is, the only thing IW did was push the envelope a bit on how much prior knowledge you needed to get everything. That's, almost by definition, evolutionary.
Yeah, is it revolutionary to take an obviously 'TV' approach to a movie franchise? Seems like there's some yes and no there. Yes because it hasn't been done with movies before and because it's been a box office bonanza for Disney, but no because they're not inventing a new approach to storytelling. It's just moving a tried-and-true approach to a new medium.
I think the Russos are incredibly overrated, even with Winter Soldier probably being the best film in the MCU. Civil War was *full* of issues...many of which were shared with the even more flawed BvS. But the momentum of the MCU carried audiences through all the problems and nonsensical aspects of CW. People still cared about the characters, even if very little of the film made any sense. But you know, the Russos understand TV, and the MCU is at a point where it's become appointment viewing and it doesn't matter if there's a bad episode or two. They just have to keep people interested and keep the momentum going.
Disney was also very fortunate to have RDJ to do what movie stars can do and keep people coming to see (and spackling over any cracks in) the early films. It really gave them the momentum they needed through the early part of the franchise. It will be very, very interesting to see what happens when the 'original cast' leaves. I'm sure the MCU films will continue to do very well, and they've developed some new star characters like BP. Disney also keeps their budgets very tight, something WB/DC could learn a lot from. Still, the box office of the Ant-Man sequel was a little underwhelming by current MCU standards, which may (or may not) be a warning sign.
I think the Russos are incredibly overrated, even with Winter Soldier probably being the best film in the MCU. Civil War was *full* of issues...many of which were shared with the even more flawed BvS. But the momentum of the MCU carried audiences through all the problems and nonsensical aspects of CW. People still cared about the characters, even if very little of the film made any sense. But you know, the Russos understand TV, and the MCU is at a point where it's become appointment viewing and it doesn't matter if there's a bad episode or two. They just have to keep people interested and keep the momentum going.
I’d be genuinely interested to hear what you think the issues with Winter Soldier were. It’s not my favourite MCU film, but probably top three.
It was well made and had some great set pieces, but I couldn't shake the feeling that none of it matter as inevitably the good guys will get the Gauntlet and put everything 'right' again with maybe some timey-wimey jigglypuffing to allow for recasts and new characters
Turnip Jedi wrote: It was well made and had some great set pieces, but I couldn't shake the feeling that none of it matter as inevitably the good guys will get the Gauntlet and put everything 'right' again with maybe some timey-wimey jigglypuffing to allow for recasts and new characters
Well yeah thats a given - its like any TV show where there is a epsiode where much of the main cast are killed AND they reference a time travel thing - its going to be reset.
Strange even says he is setting up for the one version of the future that they can win in (ignoring any that Starlord does not doom half the universe with his attack).
It would be less of a giveaway if they had not killed off the most (?) of the shiny "new" characters (some of whom have new films coming out) and left most of those who were coming out of contract alive.
To be honest though if the joureny is good enough (and in this case it was), then the fact that you know your destination is not an issue - at least for me.
It would be less of a giveaway if they had not killed off the most (?) of the shiny "new" characters (some of whom have new films coming out) and left most of those who were coming out of contract alive.
To be honest though if the joureny is good enough (and in this case it was), then the fact that you know your destination is not an issue - at least for me.
Indeed. The ending has so obviously set up the next film to be one last, big adventure for the original Avengers before the MCU moves on. Sounds good to me. A text book case of how to do fan service well (and this whole movie came across, to me at least, as one for the fans). Star Wars writers take note
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I’d be genuinely interested to hear what you think the issues with Winter Soldier were. It’s not my favourite MCU film, but probably top three.
My point -- that maybe I didn't make clearly -- is that Winter Soldier is probably the best MCU film, but I think the Russos are overrated because of their other efforts.
It would be less of a giveaway if they had not killed off the most (?) of the shiny "new" characters (some of whom have new films coming out) and left most of those who were coming out of contract alive.
To be honest though if the joureny is good enough (and in this case it was), then the fact that you know your destination is not an issue - at least for me.
Indeed. The ending has so obviously set up the next film to be one last, big adventure for the original Avengers before the MCU moves on. Sounds good to me. A text book case of how to do fan service well (and this whole movie came across, to me at least, as one for the fans). Star Wars writers take note
If you believe the rumors (possible spoilers?)...
Spoiler:
...the last installment will have them moving through time revisiting big moments of earlier MCU films. Basically fan service so dense that even light can't escape. I'm sure it'll be very popular.
As for me...eh. I guess I'm just not caught up in this nostalgia-obsessed, fan-service-demanding zeitgeist that's going on.
Sure, his plan is utterly guano, pants on head, Tory voting insane. But the motivation (saving existence from itself) isn’t as twisted as his strength solution suggests.
I mean he clearly cares about gamora to such a degree he sees her as his daughter. She even weeps when he fake dies.
Its clear he never 'abused' her (not directly anyway). He cares about her feelings with such a small scene as when she tells him she hates his throne, and instead of sitting on the throne, he sits on the steps to his throne.
HATE the nano suits. From Black Panther to Iron Man to Spiderman. I know its an evolution of the costumes, saves time and kids prob think its cool, but I hate them. Forming guns or spider legs from nothing is just too much for me.
Billion times this. Whole suit bonanza has got absurd. It was really stupid already in Iron Man 2 and has got worse ever since. It devalues the character, it devalues his suit, and what is worst, it devalues other characters. Hey, why doesn't Spider-Man use that suit ALL THE TIME? I mean, it is just so much better than his own powers. If Stark can create suits out of nothing like this, where is Black Widow suit? Or Hawkeye suit? They have no powers.
Iron Man perpetually goes through this cycle. There are two aspects of his powerset appeal: the obvious, his the flashy high tech stuff, but the other is the mechanic, building raw power with his bare hands. The appeal of the former causes his stories to always be about the latest and greatest invention, until the whole thing gets completely silly and basically becomes magic. Somewhere around this point, a writer remembers the OTHER big appeal and he suffers a massive setback that strips the character bare and forces him to rebuild from scratch again. Iron Man isn't the only character to suffer this (the Flash getting ever faster runs into similar problems) but Tony is easily one of the most notable characters for repeatedly jumping the shark in terms of tech.
FWIW, while on the whole I"m really not super fond of the nano suit and there's a good at least half dozen moments from it in the firlm I'd rather were something else, I was really glad to see it actually get used properly at the end vs Thanos, where chunks of the armor disappear as Tony desperately pulls more bits of it in to keep the guns going. On the whole though, I'm definitely in the camp of losing the appeal of the character whenever we lose the sense of mechanical function from his armor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: It is an excellent movie, and is pretty much one of a kind; no movie has taken such an all-star cast, with SO many characters and made such a success with that many famous people on a single screen. Not only that, but the good guys lost. Hard. Most movies haven’t touched on that since Empire Strikes Back. It will go down as a monumental movie as revolutionary.
It was interesting to finally get to rewatch it with my wife who didn't get a chance to see it on the first run. For one thing, the spectacle of it is something she kind of checks out of and to a point, I kind of get it. There are definitely points in the film where stuff just keeps happening and it walks a fine line between making you feel the characters' desperation and just making up powers as they go. What didn't occur to me until we had to take a break right towards the end of the film though was that part of why the spectacle didn't work for her is she just assumed the good guys were going to kill the big purple CGI monster and save the universe. She literally went from dismissively guessing that "now Thor shows up to save the day" to "they lost?!" in a couple minutes.
It would be less of a giveaway if they had not killed off the most (?) of the shiny "new" characters (some of whom have new films coming out) and left most of those who were coming out of contract alive.
To be honest though if the joureny is good enough (and in this case it was), then the fact that you know your destination is not an issue - at least for me.
Indeed. The ending has so obviously set up the next film to be one last, big adventure for the original Avengers before the MCU moves on. Sounds good to me. A text book case of how to do fan service well (and this whole movie came across, to me at least, as one for the fans). Star Wars writers take note
Chalk and cheese Infinity War was a well crafted film that appeals not only to fans but a wider audiance, its funny, clever and enjoyable.
The Last Jedi is a dull, slow motion car crash - poorly written, directed and paced.
Whole suit bonanza has got absurd. It was really stupid already in Iron Man 2 and has got worse ever since. It devalues the character, it devalues his suit, and what is worst, it devalues other characters. Hey, why doesn't Spider-Man use that suit ALL THE TIME? I mean, it is just so much better than his own powers. If Stark can create suits out of nothing like this, where is Black Widow suit? Or Hawkeye suit? They have no powers.
Stark almost certainy would have created suits for Hawkeye, Cap, Black Widow etc etc if not for Civil War - its more logical than the "only I may possess this suit".
Tony is so much more than the suit - much fo the heart of the Marvel films - still hoping for a happy ending for him and Pepper. Although some interaction with Black Panther's sister would be great fun.
We have the multiple suits for the Ant man cast - the suit is just a tool in any of the films - Marvel films are about the people in them.
Sure, his plan is utterly guano, pants on head, Tory voting insane. But the motivation (saving existence from itself) isn’t as twisted as his strength solution suggests.
I mean he clearly cares about gamora to such a degree he sees her as his daughter. She even weeps when he fake dies.
Its clear he never 'abused' her (not directly anyway). He cares about her feelings with such a small scene as when she tells him she hates his throne, and instead of sitting on the throne, he sits on the steps to his throne.
Well, sure. Until he throws his 'daughter' into a chasm, sheds a tear, and is over it almost immediately. He seems awfully content with his decision to go 'daughter'-murdering by the end of the film.
You really almost have to completely turn off your brain to think that Thanos behaves like a caring parent OR appears to be someone with a coherent plan. Now, if the character is meant to be a batgak crazy monster who's achieved almost perfect self-delusion (such as that he cares for Gamora or that his scheme makes even a lick of sense)...fine, I'm on board.
Exactly, its amazing how well Marvel is putting together a massive epic story in essentially a limited universe at the moment, and Star Wars can't put together a remotely interesting one with concepts that people already love in a massive universe. If I was running Star Wars, I would be pleading with Marvel to let me borrow some writers.
We have the multiple suits for the Ant man cast - the suit is just a tool in any of the films - Marvel films are about the people in them.
I would be cool with it if an alien had it, and maybe they adopted the tech, but its just getting ridiculous now. And now that the cat is out of the bag I am afraid we'll see more of it. Imagine Ant Man clicking his helmet and it collapses back into some part of his suit because its nano too. It will just get stupid.
Sure, his plan is utterly guano, pants on head, Tory voting insane. But the motivation (saving existence from itself) isn’t as twisted as his strength solution suggests.
I mean he clearly cares about gamora to such a degree he sees her as his daughter. She even weeps when he fake dies.
Its clear he never 'abused' her (not directly anyway). He cares about her feelings with such a small scene as when she tells him she hates his throne, and instead of sitting on the throne, he sits on the steps to his throne.
Well, sure. Until he throws his 'daughter' into a chasm, sheds a tear, and is over it almost immediately. He seems awfully content with his decision to go 'daughter'-murdering by the end of the film.
You really almost have to completely turn off your brain to think that Thanos behaves like a caring parent OR appears to be someone with a coherent plan. Now, if the character is meant to be a batgak crazy monster who's achieved almost perfect self-delusion (such as that he cares for Gamora or that his scheme makes even a lick of sense)...fine, I'm on board.
Agreed - that how i saw him - a Monster with total belief in a insane scheme.
We don't really see much of her life with Thanos and given he is a complete raving lunatic its hard to be sure how he treated her off screen - the torture he inflicted on her "sister" does not bode well....
It's actually really easy to be sure how he treated her, Gamora talks about it, her reaction to him, and his treatment of Nebula (who is also supposedly his daughter.)
Sure, his plan is utterly guano, pants on head, Tory voting insane. But the motivation (saving existence from itself) isn’t as twisted as his strength solution suggests.
I mean he clearly cares about gamora to such a degree he sees her as his daughter. She even weeps when he fake dies.
Its clear he never 'abused' her (not directly anyway). He cares about her feelings with such a small scene as when she tells him she hates his throne, and instead of sitting on the throne, he sits on the steps to his throne.
Well, sure. Until he throws his 'daughter' into a chasm, sheds a tear, and is over it almost immediately. He seems awfully content with his decision to go 'daughter'-murdering by the end of the film.
You really almost have to completely turn off your brain to think that Thanos behaves like a caring parent OR appears to be someone with a coherent plan. Now, if the character is meant to be a batgak crazy monster who's achieved almost perfect self-delusion (such as that he cares for Gamora or that his scheme makes even a lick of sense)...fine, I'm on board.
Well, even though it was a bright neon sign beating you with a hammer, you still managed to miss the point of him throwing her into the abyss; the REQUIREMENT of getting the gem is sacrificing what you love most in the universe. Thanos sacrifices her, and cries over it. Regardless of how long it lasts, the fact that the gem manifests itself to him is PROOF of his love for her. He isn't content to "go daughter murdering" as you put it, so much as "I need to save the universe, and it requires my daughter's life to get the final piece I need". Is his plan crazy? Of course. But that doesn't mean he doesn't love his daughter. The movie hammers home the point that he does. Just because you're watching it with blinders on doesn't make it untrue. Humorously, given the back and forth between the Marvel/DC fans we've had on here, if Snyder did it like this, you'd approve of it and call it "deep writing".
Sure, his plan is utterly guano, pants on head, Tory voting insane. But the motivation (saving existence from itself) isn’t as twisted as his strength solution suggests.
I mean he clearly cares about gamora to such a degree he sees her as his daughter. She even weeps when he fake dies.
Its clear he never 'abused' her (not directly anyway). He cares about her feelings with such a small scene as when she tells him she hates his throne, and instead of sitting on the throne, he sits on the steps to his throne.
Well, sure. Until he throws his 'daughter' into a chasm, sheds a tear, and is over it almost immediately. He seems awfully content with his decision to go 'daughter'-murdering by the end of the film.
You really almost have to completely turn off your brain to think that Thanos behaves like a caring parent OR appears to be someone with a coherent plan. Now, if the character is meant to be a batgak crazy monster who's achieved almost perfect self-delusion (such as that he cares for Gamora or that his scheme makes even a lick of sense)...fine, I'm on board.
Well, even though it was a bright neon sign beating you with a hammer, you still managed to miss the point of him throwing her into the abyss; the REQUIREMENT of getting the gem is sacrificing what you love most in the universe. Thanos sacrifices her, and cries over it. Regardless of how long it lasts, the fact that the gem manifests itself to him is PROOF of his love for her. He isn't content to "go daughter murdering" as you put it, so much as "I need to save the universe, and it requires my daughter's life to get the final piece I need". Is his plan crazy? Of course. But that doesn't mean he doesn't love his daughter. The movie hammers home the point that he does. Just because you're watching it with blinders on doesn't make it untrue. Humorously, given the back and forth between the Marvel/DC fans we've had on here, if Snyder did it like this, you'd approve of it and call it "deep writing".
"Thing he loves most" only needs to be the top item on an unimpressive list. And in fact it was exactly that, because he murdered it in the name of a plan that makes no sense to any sane individual.
Quite the fanboy reaction you have there, BTW. My comment isn't even a criticism of the film if you read what I said, but you went full on "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!1!!"
...the last installment will have them moving through time revisiting big moments of earlier MCU films. Basically fan service so dense that even light can't escape. I'm sure it'll be very popular.
As for me...eh. I guess I'm just not caught up in this nostalgia-obsessed, fan-service-demanding zeitgeist that's going on.
As long as it's Back to the Future II style, I'm game!
...the last installment will have them moving through time revisiting big moments of earlier MCU films. Basically fan service so dense that even light can't escape. I'm sure it'll be very popular.
As for me...eh. I guess I'm just not caught up in this nostalgia-obsessed, fan-service-demanding zeitgeist that's going on.
As long as it's Back to the Future II style, I'm game!
...the last installment will have them moving through time revisiting big moments of earlier MCU films. Basically fan service so dense that even light can't escape. I'm sure it'll be very popular.
As for me...eh. I guess I'm just not caught up in this nostalgia-obsessed, fan-service-demanding zeitgeist that's going on.
As long as it's Back to the Future II style, I'm game!
That means we need a hover board chase!
well there's this shiny dude with a board, he's kind of Radd...
Sure, his plan is utterly guano, pants on head, Tory voting insane. But the motivation (saving existence from itself) isn’t as twisted as his strength solution suggests.
I mean he clearly cares about gamora to such a degree he sees her as his daughter. She even weeps when he fake dies.
Its clear he never 'abused' her (not directly anyway). He cares about her feelings with such a small scene as when she tells him she hates his throne, and instead of sitting on the throne, he sits on the steps to his throne.
Well, sure. Until he throws his 'daughter' into a chasm, sheds a tear, and is over it almost immediately. He seems awfully content with his decision to go 'daughter'-murdering by the end of the film.
You really almost have to completely turn off your brain to think that Thanos behaves like a caring parent OR appears to be someone with a coherent plan. Now, if the character is meant to be a batgak crazy monster who's achieved almost perfect self-delusion (such as that he cares for Gamora or that his scheme makes even a lick of sense)...fine, I'm on board.
Well, even though it was a bright neon sign beating you with a hammer, you still managed to miss the point of him throwing her into the abyss; the REQUIREMENT of getting the gem is sacrificing what you love most in the universe. Thanos sacrifices her, and cries over it. Regardless of how long it lasts, the fact that the gem manifests itself to him is PROOF of his love for her. He isn't content to "go daughter murdering" as you put it, so much as "I need to save the universe, and it requires my daughter's life to get the final piece I need". Is his plan crazy? Of course. But that doesn't mean he doesn't love his daughter. The movie hammers home the point that he does. Just because you're watching it with blinders on doesn't make it untrue. Humorously, given the back and forth between the Marvel/DC fans we've had on here, if Snyder did it like this, you'd approve of it and call it "deep writing".
"Thing he loves most" only needs to be the top item on an unimpressive list. And in fact it was exactly that, because he murdered it in the name of a plan that makes no sense to any sane individual.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Dude, you've got so much wrong in your replies, it's like you didn't understand anything about the movie references I brought up. For example, S-M:H was specifically about Peter learning *not* to rely on the suit. IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.
SM:H shouldn't BE about Peter learning "not to rely on Stark suit". The whole idea is preposterous at very basic level. There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character. Which is what the movie should be about.
JohnHwangDD wrote: IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.
It was IM3 - but what is that going to help? The suit was duplicated already by villain in IM1, and then again in IM2. And in Infinity War, we saw Stark handing out copies, thus completely nullifying the ending of IM3.
We have the multiple suits for the Ant man cast - the suit is just a tool in any of the films - Marvel films are about the people in them.
I don't like Ant-Man suit multiplication either, though it is less offensive than Iron Man suit spam.
The point is that the tools are misused, thus making the films much worse than they could be.
KTG17 wrote: HATE the nano suits. From Black Panther to Iron Man to Spiderman. I know its an evolution of the costumes, saves time and kids prob think its cool, but I hate them. Forming guns or spider legs from nothing is just too much for me.
100% with you there, but mainly for the way that they fold away from their faces whenever they go to talk.
It's what killed Black Panther's finale for me, as whenever BP and Killwhatever took a breather from fighting, their masks came off so the actors faces could be on screen so we could see the struggle these two were fighting.
Plus in sci-fi I love folding tech, that being stuff that starts small and folds into something bigger. The Silver Centurion (suit case suit) from Iron Man 2 is the ultimate example of that to me. Nano-tech just kinda makes everything appear out of no where, and it's no fun.
But at least it isn't as stupid as the "Every piece of this suit has its own in-built power system, propulsion system and guidance system, 'cause that's efficient!" suits from Iron Man 3.
Backfire wrote: There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character.
Who cares? The movies aren't the comics. In the MCU it is an aspect of his character.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Dude, you've got so much wrong in your replies, it's like you didn't understand anything about the movie references I brought up. For example, S-M:H was specifically about Peter learning *not* to rely on the suit. IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.
SM:H shouldn't BE about Peter learning "not to rely on Stark suit". The whole idea is preposterous at very basic level. There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character. Which is what the movie should be about.
Yes. I was disappointed it wasn't the same origin story movie as the last two.
Sure, his plan is utterly guano, pants on head, Tory voting insane. But the motivation (saving existence from itself) isn’t as twisted as his strength solution suggests.
I mean he clearly cares about gamora to such a degree he sees her as his daughter. She even weeps when he fake dies.
Its clear he never 'abused' her (not directly anyway). He cares about her feelings with such a small scene as when she tells him she hates his throne, and instead of sitting on the throne, he sits on the steps to his throne.
Well, sure. Until he throws his 'daughter' into a chasm, sheds a tear, and is over it almost immediately. He seems awfully content with his decision to go 'daughter'-murdering by the end of the film.
You really almost have to completely turn off your brain to think that Thanos behaves like a caring parent OR appears to be someone with a coherent plan. Now, if the character is meant to be a batgak crazy monster who's achieved almost perfect self-delusion (such as that he cares for Gamora or that his scheme makes even a lick of sense)...fine, I'm on board.
Well, even though it was a bright neon sign beating you with a hammer, you still managed to miss the point of him throwing her into the abyss; the REQUIREMENT of getting the gem is sacrificing what you love most in the universe. Thanos sacrifices her, and cries over it. Regardless of how long it lasts, the fact that the gem manifests itself to him is PROOF of his love for her. He isn't content to "go daughter murdering" as you put it, so much as "I need to save the universe, and it requires my daughter's life to get the final piece I need". Is his plan crazy? Of course. But that doesn't mean he doesn't love his daughter. The movie hammers home the point that he does. Just because you're watching it with blinders on doesn't make it untrue. Humorously, given the back and forth between the Marvel/DC fans we've had on here, if Snyder did it like this, you'd approve of it and call it "deep writing".
"Thing he loves most" only needs to be the top item on an unimpressive list. And in fact it was exactly that, because he murdered it in the name of a plan that makes no sense to any sane individual.
Well he IS known as the Mad Titan.
Actually, that's what I'm saying.
If the intent by the Russos was for him to be the Mad Titan like in the comics, and have a plan as equally batgak crazy as falling in love with and wooing Death itself...cool. Make you sympathetic for a split second before you realize how bonkers it all is and slap your forehead...yeah, I'm really good with that.
It's when I see/hear people in various places talk about Thanos as a genuinely sympathetic villain who 'kinda has a point if you think about it' that I start wondering about things. Namely, is that just fans not using even an ounce of brain power, or was that the conclusion the Russos wanted audiences to reach? I'm not the Russos' biggest fan, but I'm gonna assume it's the former.
The thing that makes Thanos work, and not just him it's a constant among a certain sort of villain, is his insanity is perfectly sane.
He truly believes that he's trying to do something good, that he's not being cruel or evil and that if everyone else could just see what he sees then they'd realise this, and the massive amount of death and destruction wrought in pursuit of this goal is regrettable, but the end justifies the means.
What the movie perhaps lacks, and has generated a lot of sympathy for a Thanos as a result, is any moment of counterpoint. I think there's an assumption that the audience will see the loss of 50% of all intelligent life for the mass genocide and consequently insane idea that it is, but given the setting, people aren't attaching the gravity to it that they might if it were a realistic, or even historical, movie.
Right up until the final scenes, where the evaporation of favorite characters probably does have an impact, the audience is insulated from the reality of Thanos' plan. We don't even see the deaths on Gamora's planet because we're sharing her perspective.
Perhaps even just a simple monologue from Stark, or Rogers perhaps as a better option, where they really drove home what they're fighting for and the implications of Thanos succeeding might help, but as it stands, this is Thanos' movie and he gets to put forward his side of the argument too often to come out as anything less than sympathetic.
it's still a somewhat daft comic book baddie plan, as it'll be totally undone, at least on Earth, in 50-75 years, based on recent population growth, especially as like any wildly irresponsible deity explanations of his actions to the masses is deemed unnecessary, could he have just made the Universe a lot bigger ?
Turnip Jedi wrote: it's still a somewhat daft comic book baddie plan, as it'll be totally undone, at least on Earth, in 50-75 years, based on recent population growth, especially as like any wildly irresponsible deity explanations of his actions to the masses is deemed unnecessary, could he have just made the Universe a lot bigger ?
I think that’s one of the reasons he didn’t just double the number of resources. I got the feeling that Thanos wanted the galaxy’s (universe’s?) population to know what had happened, realise why he’d done it and learn from it. That’s why his henchmen use words like salvation and sacrifice when they’re killing people. He wanted to galaxy to think it had been given a second chance to get things right.
Turnip Jedi wrote: it's still a somewhat daft comic book baddie plan, as it'll be totally undone, at least on Earth, in 50-75 years, based on recent population growth, especially as like any wildly irresponsible deity explanations of his actions to the masses is deemed unnecessary, could he have just made the Universe a lot bigger ?
I think that’s one of the reasons he didn’t just double the number of resources. I got the feeling that Thanos wanted the galaxy’s (universe’s?) population to know what had happened, realise why he’d done it and learn from it. That’s why his henchmen use words like salvation and sacrifice when they’re killing people. He wanted to galaxy to think it had been given a second chance to get things right.
And f he just doubles the resources, the universes population would grow MORE, inflating the problem.
Azreal13 wrote: What the movie perhaps lacks, and has generated a lot of sympathy for a Thanos as a result, is any moment of counterpoint. I think there's an assumption that the audience will see the loss of 50% of all intelligent life for the mass genocide and consequently insane idea that it is, but given the setting, people aren't attaching the gravity to it that they might if it were a realistic, or even historical, movie.
Ya know, I think you're dead on there. All the big epic set pieces probably also distract audiences from considering it.
Having Cap deliver the speech would have been a good fit. And given him something to do in yet another film that minimized his presence...
Turnip Jedi wrote: it's still a somewhat daft comic book baddie plan, as it'll be totally undone, at least on Earth, in 50-75 years, based on recent population growth, especially as like any wildly irresponsible deity explanations of his actions to the masses is deemed unnecessary, could he have just made the Universe a lot bigger ?
Right, and beyond that, just randomly cutting populations in half could very obviously have catastrophic consequences on some worlds instead of being any kind of boon to them or the universe. There's no sense in any of it, and we could go on and on. The film probably could have used just a little more underlining of that point, as Azreal's pointed out.
Turnip Jedi wrote: it's still a somewhat daft comic book baddie plan, as it'll be totally undone, at least on Earth, in 50-75 years, based on recent population growth, especially as like any wildly irresponsible deity explanations of his actions to the masses is deemed unnecessary, could he have just made the Universe a lot bigger ?
I think that’s one of the reasons he didn’t just double the number of resources. I got the feeling that Thanos wanted the galaxy’s (universe’s?) population to know what had happened, realise why he’d done it and learn from it. That’s why his henchmen use words like salvation and sacrifice when they’re killing people. He wanted to galaxy to think it had been given a second chance to get things right.
That...actually makes the crazy plan way less crazy. I hadn’t thought of that!
JohnHwangDD wrote: Dude, you've got so much wrong in your replies, it's like you didn't understand anything about the movie references I brought up. For example, S-M:H was specifically about Peter learning *not* to rely on the suit. IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.
SM:H shouldn't BE about Peter learning "not to rely on Stark suit". The whole idea is preposterous at very basic level. There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character. Which is what the movie should be about.
Yes. I was disappointed it wasn't the same origin story movie as the last two.
LOL. To be fair, does Spiderman really need an origin story? Or Batman, for that matter? Aren't origin stories kinda passe? If in-universe, the general public can be OK knowing that supers exist without getting into the nitty-gritty of how they became a hero, can't we?
I think it's fine that Marvel can introduce characters without spending hours on how they got their powers, why they want to be a superhero, when they can have heroes and just tell stories around them. And it's not like Marvel didn't do that in the comics, either, where a new character appears out of the blue and starts doing stuff. Sure, it's usually villains, but new allies like Spidey work fine, too. And having already been introduced in Civil War, wouldn't the moment for another Spidey origin have passed from a chronological narrative standpoint?
If you have to spend a 2-hour movie introducing each MCU Hero, for the sheer number of heroes in something like Infinity War, you'd never be able to get there. As it is, the MCU had been going for a decade from IM1, and released 18 films prior to IW - that's a lot of content, esp with AM2 as something of the other bookend to IW.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Dude, you've got so much wrong in your replies, it's like you didn't understand anything about the movie references I brought up. For example, S-M:H was specifically about Peter learning *not* to rely on the suit. IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.
SM:H shouldn't BE about Peter learning "not to rely on Stark suit". The whole idea is preposterous at very basic level. There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character. Which is what the movie should be about.
JohnHwangDD wrote: IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.
It was IM3 - but what is that going to help? The suit was duplicated already by villain in IM1, and then again in IM2. And in Infinity War, we saw Stark handing out copies, thus completely nullifying the ending of IM3.
We have the multiple suits for the Ant man cast - the suit is just a tool in any of the films - Marvel films are about the people in them.
I don't like Ant-Man suit multiplication either, though it is less offensive than Iron Man suit spam.
The point is that the tools are misused, thus making the films much worse than they could be.
Spiderman: H is the first Spiderman film I could stomach -fun film but my fav bit was the end with engagement ring...
Suits - well given that the Marvel films are never about the Tech or the Suits - but who uses/wears them, why they do, etc I am fine with more of them they are just props for some cool fighty stuff.
IM3 ending - I didn't believe he wouldn't make more suits, Peper would not have believed it - hell he all but winks at the camera when he fetches his semi-sentient arm.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Dude, you've got so much wrong in your replies, it's like you didn't understand anything about the movie references I brought up. For example, S-M:H was specifically about Peter learning *not* to rely on the suit. IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.
SM:H shouldn't BE about Peter learning "not to rely on Stark suit". The whole idea is preposterous at very basic level. There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character. Which is what the movie should be about.
Yes. I was disappointed it wasn't the same origin story movie as the last two.
LOL. To be fair, does Spiderman really need an origin story? Or Batman, for that matter? Aren't origin stories kinda passe? If in-universe, the general public can be OK knowing that supers exist without getting into the nitty-gritty of how they became a hero, can't we?
I think it's fine that Marvel can introduce characters without spending hours on how they got their powers, why they want to be a superhero, when they can have heroes and just tell stories around them. And it's not like Marvel didn't do that in the comics, either, where a new character appears out of the blue and starts doing stuff. Sure, it's usually villains, but new allies like Spidey work fine, too. And having already been introduced in Civil War, wouldn't the moment for another Spidey origin have passed from a chronological narrative standpoint?
If you have to spend a 2-hour movie introducing each MCU Hero, for the sheer number of heroes in something like Infinity War, you'd never be able to get there. As it is, the MCU had been going for a decade from IM1, and released 18 films prior to IW - that's a lot of content, esp with AM2 as something of the other bookend to IW.
Agreed - Spidermans origins is done in a quick conversation with his mate, - job done, same with Justice League and a couple of their main cast. We don.t need more most of the time.
I’m a bit behind in my marvel filmage, just saw Thor Ragnarok last night.. but I heard all about IW and who dies because people at work don't know what spoilers are. I haven’t seen Spiderman homecoming yet, but plan to soon. But, after watching Thor I started surfing around IMDB and looked up the new Spiderman kid, and it says they’re working on a sequel to homecoming.. Didn’t he die in Infinity War? How are they gonna explain that? Or is it some kind of a prequel sequel?
I'm pretty sure the sequel to Infinity War will be out before the sequel to Homecoming, so whatever magic that brings Spiderman back will have happened by that point. After the end of Infinity War, any announcements are going to be spoilers - the only way to avoid that would have been to put the whole pre-production of any further Marvel movies n hold until after the next Avengers film comes out, which isn't feasible.
Technically speaking, they could include Miles Morales and say Peter died saving the world. I mean, we already have Miles gakky friend Ned in the movie-verse instead of Harry. Homecoming is already a crappy rendition of Spider-Man, so why not pull Peter out of it and have him die a hero’s death?
In case you can’t tell, I hated Homecoming (but loved his performance in Civil War and Infinity War).
timetowaste85 wrote: Technically speaking, they could include Miles Morales and say Peter died saving the world. I mean, we already have Miles gakky friend Ned in the movie-verse instead of Harry. Homecoming is already a crappy rendition of Spider-Man, so why not pull Peter out of it and have him die a hero’s death?
In case you can’t tell, I hated Homecoming (but loved his performance in Civil War and Infinity War).
Or Spider-Gwen because purty ladies in tight supersuits is empowering or somesuch
timetowaste85 wrote: Technically speaking, they could include Miles Morales and say Peter died saving the world. I mean, we already have Miles gakky friend Ned in the movie-verse instead of Harry. Homecoming is already a crappy rendition of Spider-Man, so why not pull Peter out of it and have him die a hero’s death?
In case you can’t tell, I hated Homecoming (but loved his performance in Civil War and Infinity War).
Or Spider-Gwen because purty ladies in tight supersuits is empowering or somesuch
Women is tight armour suits kicking ass is a plus for me. Marvels version of Bubblegum Crisis - cool
timetowaste85 wrote: Technically speaking, they could include Miles Morales and say Peter died saving the world. I mean, we already have Miles gakky friend Ned in the movie-verse instead of Harry. Homecoming is already a crappy rendition of Spider-Man, so why not pull Peter out of it and have him die a hero’s death?
In case you can’t tell, I hated Homecoming (but loved his performance in Civil War and Infinity War).
But we already know they aren't doing this - unless it is the greatest fake-out of all time.
Tom Holland is already filming "Far From Home" and posts about it fairly regularly.
Plus it is rumored to be featuring one of the greatest Spidey Super-Villains of all time too, so that's a bonus!
timetowaste85 wrote: Technically speaking, they could include Miles Morales and say Peter died saving the world. I mean, we already have Miles gakky friend Ned in the movie-verse instead of Harry. Homecoming is already a crappy rendition of Spider-Man, so why not pull Peter out of it and have him die a hero’s death?
In case you can’t tell, I hated Homecoming (but loved his performance in Civil War and Infinity War).
But we already know they aren't doing this - unless it is the greatest fake-out of all time.
Tom Holland is already filming "Far From Home" and posts about it fairly regularly.
Plus it is rumored to be featuring one of the greatest Spidey Super-Villains of all time too, so that's a bonus!
They already had Doc Oc in a movie.
Ha, I'm kidding. Really excited to see Mysterio. Though I would love to see them make a good run at the Venom/Symbiote storyline. I want to see a well cast Carnage causing problems in NYC. Really unlikely to happen though. :(
Necros wrote: I’m a bit behind in my marvel filmage, just saw Thor Ragnarok last night.. but I heard all about IW and who dies because people at work don't know what spoilers are. I haven’t seen Spiderman homecoming yet, but plan to soon. But, after watching Thor I started surfing around IMDB and looked up the new Spiderman kid, and it says they’re working on a sequel to homecoming.. Didn’t he die in Infinity War? How are they gonna explain that? Or is it some kind of a prequel sequel?
It's a movie based on a marvel comic.
Superhero comics only have one really important rule: NO-ONE stays dead.
There is a second rule: In the event of a breach of rule 1, ret-con the entire thing and "make it never happened". Both Marvel and DC have used this contrivance multiple times (double digits) in the last 40 years - each.
They'll be back faster than I can snap my fingers - just like they were never gone.
Necros wrote: I’m a bit behind in my marvel filmage, just saw Thor Ragnarok last night.. but I heard all about IW and who dies because people at work don't know what spoilers are. I haven’t seen Spiderman homecoming yet, but plan to soon. But, after watching Thor I started surfing around IMDB and looked up the new Spiderman kid, and it says they’re working on a sequel to homecoming.. Didn’t he die in Infinity War? How are they gonna explain that? Or is it some kind of a prequel sequel?
It's a movie based on a marvel comic.
Superhero comics only have one really important rule: NO-ONE stays dead.
There is a second rule: In the event of a breach of rule 1, ret-con the entire thing and "make it never happened". Both Marvel and DC have used this contrivance multiple times (double digits) in the last 40 years - each.
They'll be back faster than I can snap my fingers - just like they were never gone.
Necros wrote: I’m a bit behind in my marvel filmage, just saw Thor Ragnarok last night.. but I heard all about IW and who dies because people at work don't know what spoilers are. I haven’t seen Spiderman homecoming yet, but plan to soon. But, after watching Thor I started surfing around IMDB and looked up the new Spiderman kid, and it says they’re working on a sequel to homecoming.. Didn’t he die in Infinity War? How are they gonna explain that? Or is it some kind of a prequel sequel?
It's a movie based on a marvel comic.
Superhero comics only have one really important rule: NO-ONE stays dead.
There is a second rule: In the event of a breach of rule 1, ret-con the entire thing and "make it never happened". Both Marvel and DC have used this contrivance multiple times (double digits) in the last 40 years - each.
They'll be back faster than I can snap my fingers - just like they were never gone.
Except for Ben Parker. Ben Parker stays dead.
And batmans parents. And kyle rayners girlfriend in the fridge.
Superhero comics only have one really important rule: NO-ONE stays dead.
There is a second rule: In the event of a breach of rule 1, ret-con the entire thing and "make it never happened". Both Marvel and DC have used this contrivance multiple times (double digits) in the last 40 years - each.
They'll be back faster than I can snap my fingers - just like they were never gone.
Except for Ben Parker. Ben Parker stays dead.
Yeah, but I remember back 20 years ago when that statement used to go "...but Bucky, Gwen Stacy, and Ben Parker always stay dead". Now we're just down to one out of the three.
Superhero comics only have one really important rule: NO-ONE stays dead.
There is a second rule: In the event of a breach of rule 1, ret-con the entire thing and "make it never happened". Both Marvel and DC have used this contrivance multiple times (double digits) in the last 40 years - each.
They'll be back faster than I can snap my fingers - just like they were never gone.
Except for Ben Parker. Ben Parker stays dead.
Yeah, but I remember back 20 years ago when that statement used to go "...but Bucky, Gwen Stacy, and Ben Parker always stay dead". Now we're just down to one out of the three.
Used to include jason todd too. Then.. You know... Under the red hood.
Necros wrote: I’m a bit behind in my marvel filmage, just saw Thor Ragnarok last night.. but I heard all about IW and who dies because people at work don't know what spoilers are. I haven’t seen Spiderman homecoming yet, but plan to soon. But, after watching Thor I started surfing around IMDB and looked up the new Spiderman kid, and it says they’re working on a sequel to homecoming.. Didn’t he die in Infinity War? How are they gonna explain that? Or is it some kind of a prequel sequel?
It's a movie based on a marvel comic.
Superhero comics only have one really important rule: NO-ONE stays dead.
There is a second rule: In the event of a breach of rule 1, ret-con the entire thing and "make it never happened". Both Marvel and DC have used this contrivance multiple times (double digits) in the last 40 years - each.
They'll be back faster than I can snap my fingers - just like they were never gone.
Except for Ben Parker. Ben Parker stays dead.
And batmans parents. And kyle rayners girlfriend in the fridge.
Although we got to meet an alternate universe version of Thomas Wayne, who became Batman after Bruce and Martha were gunned down. He later met the Earth-Prime main universe/continuity Batman. So in a way, that character was revived.
Spoiler:
Jor-El is also alive now, and that's not an alternate universe thing.
Spoiler:
There's a good reason why superhero comic characters don't stay dead. Those comics go on forever, so why would you permanently off a good character and eliminate those storylines that could sell books?
Necros wrote: I’m a bit behind in my marvel filmage, just saw Thor Ragnarok last night.. but I heard all about IW and who dies because people at work don't know what spoilers are. I haven’t seen Spiderman homecoming yet, but plan to soon. But, after watching Thor I started surfing around IMDB and looked up the new Spiderman kid, and it says they’re working on a sequel to homecoming.. Didn’t he die in Infinity War? How are they gonna explain that? Or is it some kind of a prequel sequel?
It's a movie based on a marvel comic.
Superhero comics only have one really important rule: NO-ONE stays dead. There is a second rule: In the event of a breach of rule 1, ret-con the entire thing and "make it never happened". Both Marvel and DC have used this contrivance multiple times (double digits) in the last 40 years - each.
They'll be back faster than I can snap my fingers - just like they were never gone.
Except for Ben Parker. Ben Parker stays dead.
And batmans parents. And kyle rayners girlfriend in the fridge.
Although we got to meet an alternate universe version of Thomas Wayne, who became Batman after Bruce and Martha were gunned down. He later met the Earth-Prime main universe/continuity Batman. So in a way, that character was revived.
Spoiler:
Jor-El is also alive now, and that's not an alternate universe thing.
Spoiler:
There's a good reason why superhero comic characters don't stay dead. Those comics go on forever, so why would you permanently off a good character and eliminate those storylines that could sell books?
Martha Wayne also came back as The Joker in Flashpoint, where Thomas Wayne Batman originated, Pre-Rebirth anyway.
There's a good reason why superhero comic characters don't stay dead. Those comics go on forever, so why would you permanently off a good character and eliminate those storylines that could sell books?
Yep, but the difference with live-action movies/TV is that the actors can't "go on forever". So, unless you recast a role (Dumbledore), you're left with rebooting the character (the various Batman movies) or having someone else take up the mask (someone other than Stark in the Iron Man armor).
Character deaths that define other characters early on should stay dead. Ben Parker's death defines why Peter uses his powers for good, rather than selfish gain.
To bring back Ben would diminish Peter's motivations.
An occasional "what if" storyline is fine, so long as it doesn't affect the "proper" storyline.
Mysterio wrote: I don't think 'our' (616?) Gwen has ever come back, has she?
And as far as Avengers 4 goes, most likely most everyone who died in 3 comes back, and a lot of those who didn't aren't making it out of 4 alive.
Or maybe no longer 'active'.
Actually, I thought it really lessened the stakes at the end when so many of the heroes that turned to ash were the ones that will obviously carrying the Marvel flag going forward. So of course those aren't going to stick.
There's a good reason why superhero comic characters don't stay dead. Those comics go on forever, so why would you permanently off a good character and eliminate those storylines that could sell books?
Yep, but the difference with live-action movies/TV is that the actors can't "go on forever". So, unless you recast a role (Dumbledore), you're left with rebooting the character (the various Batman movies) or having someone else take up the mask (someone other than Stark in the Iron Man armor).
That was my quote. But yes, you're right. Which makes the next phase for Marvel really interesting, as people have been saying for a while. Clearly they've done a good job developing new popular heroes like BP. Still, their BO could be affected some when the characters that people are most attached to move on. It'll be interesting to see how they handle it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: Character deaths that define other characters early on should stay dead. Ben Parker's death defines why Peter uses his powers for good, rather than selfish gain.
To bring back Ben would diminish Peter's motivations.
Diminish or change? Or maybe not change at all? Does Peter *still* need his uncle to be dead in order to go out and help people instead of using his abilities to to get cash? There are potentially great stories to be told there, like with the Earth-2 Thomas Wayne Batman.
I read some crazy ideas about Avengers 4 where with all the anticipated time jumping that there might be some present avengers and some past avengers, and some of each will die. Sounds really trippy and I have no idea how accurate any of that might be, but it certainly would enable Marvel to kill off some people yet still have them around. The thing is some of these actors are aging, and not sure how you can explain all that. And there is a whole host of other issues that would cause too. But I do think it would be over the top crazy cool.
KTG17 wrote: I read some crazy ideas about Avengers 4 where with all the anticipated time jumping that there might be some present avengers and some past avengers, and some of each will die. Sounds really trippy and I have no idea how accurate any of that might be, but it certainly would enable Marvel to kill off some people yet still have them around. The thing is some of these actors are aging, and not sure how you can explain all that. And there is a whole host of other issues that would cause too. But I do think it would be over the top crazy cool.
Yeah, given some of the leaked production photos, I anticipate Stark, Antman, & Cap at least to be time traveling to the events of the first Avenger film. Potentially enlisting the help of Loki from that time (wouldn't that be a twist). When all is said and done, I'd expect Stark and Cap to be retired in some way, whether dead or just out of the action permanently
There's a good reason why superhero comic characters don't stay dead. Those comics go on forever, so why would you permanently off a good character and eliminate those storylines that could sell books?
Yep, but the difference with live-action movies/TV is that the actors can't "go on forever". So, unless you recast a role (Dumbledore), you're left with rebooting the character (the various Batman movies) or having someone else take up the mask (someone other than Stark in the Iron Man armor).
Edit: fixed quote credit
I really hope they don’t go down the route of recasting or rebooting. I’d love it if the MCU continues for another 10 years or more with the same continuity. Marvel has more than enough characters for them to be able to “retire” a character after a few years and keep the MCU fresh by introducing new ones.
There's a good reason why superhero comic characters don't stay dead. Those comics go on forever, so why would you permanently off a good character and eliminate those storylines that could sell books?
Yep, but the difference with live-action movies/TV is that the actors can't "go on forever". So, unless you recast a role (Dumbledore), you're left with rebooting the character (the various Batman movies) or having someone else take up the mask (someone other than Stark in the Iron Man armor).
Edit: fixed quote credit
I really hope they don’t go down the route of recasting or rebooting. I’d love it if the MCU continues for another 10 years or more with the same continuity. Marvel has more than enough characters for them to be able to “retire” a character after a few years and keep the MCU fresh by introducing new ones.
An ageing Stark and Pepper (and faimily!?) could be quite fun to see now and again, same with hawkeye
I suspect we'll see Bucky-Cap or Falcon-Cap at least once. Probably not in a solo film.
Overall, we'll probably get a new wave of movies built around Spidey, BP, Captain Marvel, and the Eternals. Guardians probably would have been involved too but for Gunn's troubles. Then when those have run their courses and there's some distance from the original MCU cast..reboot time.
Mysterio wrote: Yes, and someone else can certainly be "Iron Man" and "Captain America" too.
As long as they do it in a similar vein to Falcon or Bucky taking up Cap's mantle when he falls, or when Rhodey dons the Iron Man suit when Tony develops a heavy drinking problem. After they've already made a name for themselves, defined themselves as characters, and took over for their friend who fell (death/age acceleration) and not the crap like Iron Man handing over his suit to a 13 year old kid just because she came out of nowhere, made no name for herself and just rebuilt one of his old suits. One shows how you do it correctly, and one is insulting. Cap's writers did it right both times. Iron Man's writers did it successfully once with Rhodey; this new girl (I refuse to even learn her name) was done poorly, as she was given no opportunity to even begin to build a name for herself before getting handed the mantle of one of Marvel's currently most popular characters. It's the same thing as Cho-Hulk and Khan-Marvel. "This is awesome, so I'm gonna replace X person from before me". The characters clearly written by 8 year olds are not appealing; the characters with flaws and hardships are the ones audiences usually care about. No conflict=apathy.
So Falcon or Bucky takes over for Cap? Cool. Jane Foster takes over for Thor? Cool. Rhodey takes over for Stark? Cool. No-name teen girl who rebuilds a suit takes over for Stark? Not cool.
I don't mind new characters. I VERY much mind old, beloved characters being replaced by people who haven't proven themselves in the slightest and are doing it "cuz it's awesome!"
Overall, we'll probably get a new wave of movies built around Spidey, BP, Captain Marvel, and the Eternals. Guardians probably would have been involved too but for Gunn's troubles.
gorgon wrote: I suspect we'll see Bucky-Cap or Falcon-Cap at least once. Probably not in a solo film.
Overall, we'll probably get a new wave of movies built around Spidey, BP, Captain Marvel, and the Eternals. Guardians probably would have been involved too but for Gunn's troubles. Then when those have run their courses and there's some distance from the original MCU cast..reboot time.
And that's at least 10 more years away, now that the MCU can use the Fantastic Four and the X-Men stables too!
Mysterio wrote: I don't think 'our' (616?) Gwen has ever come back, has she?
And as far as Avengers 4 goes, most likely most everyone who died in 3 comes back, and a lot of those who didn't aren't making it out of 4 alive.
Or maybe no longer 'active'.
Actually, I thought it really lessened the stakes at the end when so many of the heroes that turned to ash were the ones that will obviously carrying the Marvel flag going forward. So of course those aren't going to stick.
Eh. I think it's partly a flaw of the storyline, or rather the MacGuffin(s). It doesn't have any stakes... at all.
While Thanos made a big emotional show of regretting his 'sacrifice,' if he has any brain at all, he should realize he can undo it, and recreate mind, body and soul. Same with all the deaths-they aren't an issue.
It's something inherent to having a plot device of actual ultimate power that can accomplish anything- both the Infinity War and Secret War comics suffered from the same problem.
It's a great tool for squelching any characters that didn't earn, or replacing any actors/actresses whose contracts are up or want out, but nothing more than that. Narratively, potentially every aspect that had weight for the last several films (like Asgard) can be reset to whatever point the writers/Disney board deem 'most effective.' Whether they make a good call on that is up in the air, though they've done fairly well for... however many movies this is.
gorgon wrote: I suspect we'll see Bucky-Cap or Falcon-Cap at least once. Probably not in a solo film.
Overall, we'll probably get a new wave of movies built around Spidey, BP, Captain Marvel, and the Eternals. Guardians probably would have been involved too but for Gunn's troubles. Then when those have run their courses and there's some distance from the original MCU cast..reboot time.
And that's at least 10 more years away, now that the MCU can use the Fantastic Four and the X-Men stables too!
Although Actors' contracts being up can also influence this. Chris Evans and RDJ are likely on the way out and continuing their characters should mean passing the mantle.
I was referring to when the latest 'batch' might then be up - Boseman, Holland, Stan, etc.
When you salt in new FF and X-men casts?
They've easily got another 10 years before they even need to think about a 're-boot'.
And I can see Cap and Iron Man potentially surviving, but at the same time 'retiring' and retreating to the background, to show up every now and then in stringers and what not.
Cap has an older counterpart in the comics; when Red Skull used the tesseract to age him. No reason he couldn’t stay on in a Nick Fury style role. Iron Man could too, honestly, building tech for the Avengers. It’s not like him retiring would ever get the bad guys to leave him alone to live a normal life afterwards.
I think that they think we 'need' (or want?) some big lasting death, to lend the appropriate gravitas to the whole thing.
Especially as many of the 'deaths' in Infinity War aren't sticking.
Combine that with some actors wanting to be done now (RDJ? Evans?), and I think we'll get at least one Han Solo style "Stabbed in the heart, thrown into a pit that leads to the center of the planet and then that same planet gets blown up" style of True Death here.
Sorry, I meant no “in story” reason. Yeah, if Evans simply wants to direct, and doesn’t want to act anymore, then I’m sure the writing is on the wall for Steve to die and Bucky or Sam take his place. If we get some gakky “American Lad” style garbage though, I’m rage-quitting the theater! Lol
I'd rather not make it all about trading lives. I can see it happening, but its very rare for a stakes raiser kill or even a big finale death to satisfy long term. It's the kind of stuff that works in the moment but begs for retcons. I'd much rather characters end up in a place where they can be available for cameos and the like, but don't need to be the drive of the story going forward.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I think the reason they'll kill off Cap is that Chris Evans reportedly doesnt want to act anymore.
I think using the Gems to put him on the Bridge at the end of Season 1 of Agent Carter would be the happy ending he's earned
That would be awesome!
LunarSol wrote:I'd rather not make it all about trading lives. I can see it happening, but its very rare for a stakes raiser kill or even a big finale death to satisfy long term. It's the kind of stuff that works in the moment but begs for retcons. I'd much rather characters end up in a place where they can be available for cameos and the like, but don't need to be the drive of the story going forward.
Agreed - and even if they never make that cameo, it would be nice for them to get a somewhat happy ending in...the end.
And given the power of the Infinity Gauntlet, that really should be possible!
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I think the reason they'll kill off Cap is that Chris Evans reportedly doesnt want to act anymore.
I'm not sure that Marvel has a ton of faith in Chris Evans' ability to carry a film anyway. "Captain America" Civil War was an Avengers 2.5 film, and Tony Stark had the big character arc. Winter Soldier is still my fave Marvel film, and is truly a Cap movie, but also features more of an ensemble cast than most of Marvel's 'solo' films.
Basically, Evans is *definitely* no RDJ, and isn't even a Hemsworth either. When it comes time to reboot Steve Rogers, there won't be any great shadow cast by Evans' performance in the role.
Stan as Bucky Cap would probably lead to something more interesting than anything Marvel did with the character or Evans did with the role.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I think the reason they'll kill off Cap is that Chris Evans reportedly doesnt want to act anymore.
I'm not sure that Marvel has a ton of faith in Chris Evans' ability to carry a film anyway. "Captain America" Civil War was an Avengers 2.5 film, and Tony Stark had the big character arc. Winter Soldier is still my fave Marvel film, and is truly a Cap movie, but also features more of an ensemble cast than most of Marvel's 'solo' films.
Basically, Evans is *definitely* no RDJ, and isn't even a Hemsworth either. When it comes time to reboot Steve Rogers, there won't be any great shadow cast by Evans' performance in the role.
Stan as Bucky Cap would probably lead to something more interesting than anything Marvel did with the character or Evans did with the role.
I don't think it's Chris Evans that Marvel doesn't have faith in, but Steve Rogers they don't have faith in. Rogers is too good/perfect/virtuous for today's audiences. Me, I like having some perfect heroes to look up to (Reeves is best Superman!), but that's not so popular today.
You mentioned Hemsworth, and I think it'll be interesting to see if he can carry a full Thor movie without Loki to bounce off of.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I don't think it's Chris Evans that Marvel doesn't have faith in, but Steve Rogers they don't have faith in.
You mentioned Hemsworth, and I think it'll be interesting to see if he can carry a full Thor movie without Loki to bounce off of.
Pretty much. Captain America, like Hulk, is best when it's not just him in the limelight, but rather as a contrast. Although, to be fair, almost all of the more recent Marvel movies tend to be more ensemble pieces than single star pieces.
Also, Thor did fine with Hulk by his side. Also Rocket.
I don't think it's Chris Evans that Marvel doesn't have faith in, but Steve Rogers they don't have faith in. Rogers is too good/perfect/virtuous for today's audiences. Me, I like having some perfect heroes to look up to (Reeves is best Superman!), but that's not so popular today.
Then they've only got themselves to blame. Rogers can remain inherently good while still exploring flaws. He can doubt, his own unwavering pursuit of "the right thing" can work as a negative (as it sort of did in Civil War,) he can struggle to adapt to modern thinking. The fact that these things were generally used for comic relief if they were touched on at all, has robbed screen Rogers of a lot of his depth.
There's a long list of things they could do/have done to add depth to Rogers without compromising his inherent Cap-ness.
I don't like perfect heroes, never have, but unlike Superman whose inherent Mary-Sueness is baked in to the character, Cap is fundamentally still just a man and can be subject to the same struggles as anyone else.
I don't think it's Chris Evans that Marvel doesn't have faith in, but Steve Rogers they don't have faith in. Rogers is too good/perfect/virtuous for today's audiences. Me, I like having some perfect heroes to look up to (Reeves is best Superman!), but that's not so popular today.
Then they've only got themselves to blame. Rogers can remain inherently good while still exploring flaws. He can doubt, his own unwavering pursuit of "the right thing" can work as a negative (as it sort of did in Civil War,) he can struggle to adapt to modern thinking. The fact that these things were generally used for comic relief if they were touched on at all, has robbed screen Rogers of a lot of his depth.
There's a long list of things they could do/have done to add depth to Rogers without compromising his inherent Cap-ness.
I don't like perfect heroes, never have, but unlike Superman whose inherent Mary-Sueness is baked in to the character, Cap is fundamentally still just a man and can be subject to the same struggles as anyone else.
Absolutely correct. The kneejerk representation of Steve Rogers is that he's Dudley Do-Right and a soldier that does everything he's told to do. Lawful good, in D&D terms. But his history in comics shows a character who follows his own moral code -- even when that puts him at odds with the law. He's quit the role of Captain America multiple times during these fallouts.
And for a Dudley Do-Right, he's sure had a lot of friends with...flexible(?)...moral codes. He has a long running association with SHIELD and Nick Fury, and his most famous girlfriend is an agent who went into deep cover for years, during which it was suggested she did ALL KINDS of gak. Another former girlfriend was a (mostly) reformed villain. It was revealed that Bucky did all the dirty gak during WWII that the government didn't want directly connected to Cap.
To be fair to Marvel Studios, they tried to incorporate a little of this into the films, as we saw in Winter Soldier and Civil War. But it was superficial. For whatever reason, they didn't want to explore the character very deeply. Again, Stark had the big character arc in Cap 3, not Rogers. And really, if you're making a movie, who are you asking to carry the film -- RDJ or Evans? If Evans have been a *revelation* in the role of Steve Rogers, maybe it would been different. Or maybe he couldn't make chicken salad out of chicken gak. I dunno.
I love Captain America. Evans was a perfect cast for him. I would watch a dozen more Cap America movies if they made them. But as far as carrying a movie, I don't think that is his point. Cap is a leader to me and is best when leading some group. But I also think there is only too much you can do with a guy and a shield. You need more elements in today's action films.
I wouldn't mind seeing Bucky carry the shield for awhile, but man that guy needs some changing. Not sure Bucky in his current form is all that interesting to me. Nor do I see him as any kind of leader either. I would have been down with Roger's being down for awhile and telling Bucky to carry on as Cap for a bit, but Cap always going back to Rogers.
KTG17 wrote: I love Captain America. Evans was a perfect cast for him. I would watch a dozen more Cap America movies if they made them. But as far as carrying a movie, I don't think that is his point. Cap is a leader to me and is best when leading some group. But I also think there is only too much you can do with a guy and a shield. You need more elements in today's action films.
He might be a hero out of time, but I love him.
Totally agree. The Movies with Cap are my favorite and I will watch any Cap film.
Evans has done a great job as cap; he just hasn't had is own story in quite a while, particularly after Cap 3 got replaced with Avengers 2.8 (still loved it, but it's as much of a Cap movie as Infinity War is an Iron Man one).
Civil War was still a Cap movie. It's single strongest thread was a direct continuation of the story that started in Winter Soldier - that being the Cap/Bucky plot.
Calling it Avengers 2.5 just cheapens the film. You might as well call it Black Panther #0 or Spider-Man #0.
That's what I'm getting at though. It is a Cap movie, but its also a pretty direct continuation of Avengers and Winter Soldier's stories and an introduction to Black Panther and Spiderman and even in a lot of ways an Iron Man story. It's not a slight against the film itself; the film is great. It's just not the strongest showcase of what they can do with Cap himself given all the other plot threads.
LunarSol wrote: That's what I'm getting at though. It is a Cap movie, but its also a pretty direct continuation of Avengers and Winter Soldier's stories and an introduction to Black Panther and Spiderman and even in a lot of ways an Iron Man story. It's not a slight against the film itself; the film is great. It's just not the strongest showcase of what they can do with Cap himself given all the other plot threads.
One of the (many) great things about the Marvel films is that they often introduce new characters - eg Black Widow in Iron Man 2 (who is still waiting for her own film) or the the new much improved Banner/Hulk in Avengers.
For me one of the weakest marvel films was Cap A 1 - although thats not a problem with Evans but a terrible villian and bad handling of Hydra.
One of the (many) great things about the Marvel films is that they often introduce new characters - eg Black Widow in Iron Man 2 (who is still waiting for her own film) or the the new much improved Banner/Hulk in Avengers.
For me one of the weakest marvel films was Cap A 1 - although thats not a problem with Evans but a terrible villian and bad handling of Hydra.
Yeah, I feel the same way about Captain America TFA as I do about Batman Begins. It's a really good origin story and does an excellent job of establishing how the character becomes the hero, but the actual film itself is just not that interesting. I think a lot of that comes down to the fact that Cap himself has no development in his own movie. He ends the film the same person as he was at the beginning, save for the physical transformation from the serum. It would have been interesting to challenge his tendency to take things in his own hands and his belief that his moral code is beyond reproach, but this never happens in the movie or either of the sequels. Cap is always doing the right thing, nothing ever happens that makes him question his own moral compass, and his actions never seem to have any averse consequences. Yes, he gets a few of his fellow heroes imprisoned on the Raft in Civil War, but he busts them right out at the end of that film.
I love Evans as Cap, don't get me wrong. I think he absolutely nailed the character, he gets the nobility of Steve Rogers down pat. It just feels like the writers could have done a lot more with him, especially when you compare his debut movie to the other phase 1 films. Tony is challenged to open his eyes to how his company really works and what the weapons that gave him his fortune are being used for. Thor is challenged to recognize what an arrogant douche he is and how unprepared he is for the throne. Cap never really gets that moment to question himself.
JohnHwangDD wrote: OTOH, in the comics, Cap turned out to be a Nazi, so there's that...
For those who don’t know the story, this is 100% untrue. Red Skull used the Tesseract to re-write history and turned Cap into a Nazi sleeper. Cap’s life was re-written by his biggest enemy. That’s hardly him “turning out to be a Nazi”.
Or it was a clone. I saw both. But it’s not actually the Cap we grew up with.
JohnHwangDD wrote: OTOH, in the comics, Cap turned out to be a Nazi, so there's that...
For those who don’t know the story, this is 100% untrue. Red Skull used the Tesseract to re-write history and turned Cap into a Nazi sleeper. Cap’s life was re-written by his biggest enemy. That’s hardly him “turning out to be a Nazi”.
Or it was a clone. I saw both. But it’s not actually the Cap we grew up with.
More or less true but more complicated then that.
Cosmic cubes are sentient creatures in a dormant state that when they wake up have memories and personality imprints from those who used the cube. The cube used over and over again over the years by red skull and cap and all kinds of other people has been awake and sentient for a while. Cap was old because the serum wore off and gak was going wrong and in the moment the cube made cap young again but because of the imprint from Red Skull also tried to make cap the "perfect" cap and rewrote history to make him a hydra agent and best friends with Baron Zemo. *
Red Skull was still a lunatic that cap saw as a corruption of hydra ideals that needed to be put down but he was hydra none the less.
Then original flavor cap got brought back by the same cube to oppose hydra cap who had total control of the countries defenses handed to him kind of like how iron man was given full control of shield and such and turned the country into a hydra fascist state.
Real cap beat the gak out of hydra cap and there was a pretty cool conversation between the 2 of them in prison.
Real Cap was all "Thanks. Ive been telling them all along not to trust any one individual. Even me. And you provided the evidence for why it's always a bad idea to put too much power in one place."
And hydra cap was all "You think you set the time line straight, but to me THIS is the corrupted time line. And now all those hydra agents feel the same way. Every time someone messed with the time line in the past how hard did you fight to set it right? Well now all those hydra agents will be fighting that much harder to set the world back to the way they know it should have always been before you and yours corrupted it."
End result. There is A cap that has always been a hydra agent. There is also a cap that never was and never would be.
One of the (many) great things about the Marvel films is that they often introduce new characters - eg Black Widow in Iron Man 2 (who is still waiting for her own film) or the the new much improved Banner/Hulk in Avengers.
For me one of the weakest marvel films was Cap A 1 - although thats not a problem with Evans but a terrible villian and bad handling of Hydra.
Yeah, I feel the same way about Captain America TFA as I do about Batman Begins. It's a really good origin story and does an excellent job of establishing how the character becomes the hero, but the actual film itself is just not that interesting. I think a lot of that comes down to the fact that Cap himself has no development in his own movie. He ends the film the same person as he was at the beginning, save for the physical transformation from the serum. It would have been interesting to challenge his tendency to take things in his own hands and his belief that his moral code is beyond reproach, but this never happens in the movie or either of the sequels. Cap is always doing the right thing, nothing ever happens that makes him question his own moral compass, and his actions never seem to have any averse consequences. Yes, he gets a few of his fellow heroes imprisoned on the Raft in Civil War, but he busts them right out at the end of that film.
I love Evans as Cap, don't get me wrong. I think he absolutely nailed the character, he gets the nobility of Steve Rogers down pat. It just feels like the writers could have done a lot more with him, especially when you compare his debut movie to the other phase 1 films. Tony is challenged to open his eyes to how his company really works and what the weapons that gave him his fortune are being used for. Thor is challenged to recognize what an arrogant douche he is and how unprepared he is for the throne. Cap never really gets that moment to question himself.
I agree with most of this.
Regarding TFA, I agree with many that the film seems to lose its way after Steve formally becomes Cap. The hard part with writing that film is that they needed to wrap Cap's origin and entire WWII career into one movie, so that they could get to the ending they needed. As a result, the ending was on point but the montaged campaign against the Red Skull and Hydra was highly unsatisfying. The RS himself ended up unsatisfying, which is very disappointing.
One thing that hurt the movie version of the character IMO is that Steve was never really given a life outside of the superheroics. In the comics, he's held a variety of jobs, including fireman, law enforcement, etc. He's also a talented artist, and that's what he was doing before he got involved with Project Rebirth.
The comics eventually dispensed with the secret identity. So if the films didn't want to go there, fine, but the comics still wrote him as a serial monogamist, and it's been through these relationships that some interesting character stuff has come. In the films after TFA, he only gets some flirting with the BW that was never going to go anywhere, and some super-rushed stuff with Sharon that doesn't feel real or organic.
Perhaps there wasn't much room to explore Steve's relationships and life within the MCU, but I think that simply underlines how the character was done a disservice by the cinematic universe setup. His solo films were 'Avengers X.5' vehicles setting up other films. So maybe I've been too hard on Evans. Maybe it's not even Marvel's fault, exactly. Maybe it's just a character that would have been more interesting in a old-style solo franchise, with more room to breathe, villains at the appropriate power level, etc.
I think Cap 1 is a gorgeous movie. The sets, costumes, cast, etc is all really well done. Its a more complex movie than most of the other early films. It does seem to lack that umph to get it over the top tho. I think part of the reason is that we don't really care about many of the other characters lol. We know they don't last beyond the film (at least didn't expect to see Red Skull again), so you don't get too attached to them.
But I would say not until Guardians do you see a better shot movie.
Those jobs were modern era, post-serum. He had a secret identity and a life as Steve Rogers, that was the point. He doesn’t need the SI, but the movie wasn’t grounded in ways that the comics version has been.
KTG17 wrote: I think Cap 1 is a gorgeous movie. The sets, costumes, cast, etc is all really well done. Its a more complex movie than most of the other early films. It does seem to lack that umph to get it over the top tho. I think part of the reason is that we don't really care about many of the other characters lol. We know they don't last beyond the film (at least didn't expect to see Red Skull again), so you don't get too attached to them.
But I would say not until Guardians do you see a better shot movie.
I still think the big issue is the villan - not only is the Red skull just not very impressive but it tries (and fails totally) to convince us that he and Hydra is more evil than the Nazis - which is never going to work. Especially when they are shown to be so ineffective against pretty much everyone they encounter.
Its interesting to compare to Wonder Woman which I think works much better.
I agree with the OP on the Stark / Dr. Strange interaction, that was awesome
I was disappointed by the movie overall, but I think I just had sky-high expectations from the reviews. I am looking forward to seeing what was the reason Dr. Strange chose this future out of all the others, though - that was definitely the most intriguing part of the movie
RiTides wrote: I agree with the OP on the Stark / Dr. Strange interaction, that was awesome
I was disappointed by the movie overall, but I think I just had sky-high expectations from the reviews. I am looking forward to seeing what was the reason Dr. Strange chose this future out of all the others, though - that was definitely the most intriguing part of the movie
On my first viewing, I liked it in a 'for-what-it-was' way...in other words, something more like episodic TV than a traditional movie format. I like it a little less with repeat viewing.
So is Proxima Midnight the sister of Steppenwolf? The CGI had that same bad unfinished look. It's odd they even went CGI with the character.
Mysterio wrote: I didn't follow that storyline all that closely, so thanks for the synopsis - it actually sounds better than I thought it was!
Is it available in a TPB? (At least the overarching story issues)
And - what is Hydra Cap called now?
(Or is he a new Baron Zemo or...someone else?)
If its not in trade yet it should be soon. I think its call secret empire or some gak? At least the revealed hydra cap controlled country chapter of it is.
Dont know if hydra cap has an alias. I believe he has a hydra skull/tenticles tatooed on his chest.
Mysterio wrote: I didn't follow that storyline all that closely, so thanks for the synopsis - it actually sounds better than I thought it was!
Is it available in a TPB? (At least the overarching story issues)
And - what is Hydra Cap called now?
(Or is he a new Baron Zemo or...someone else?)
If its not in trade yet it should be soon. I think its call secret empire or some gak? At least the revealed hydra cap controlled country chapter of it is.
Dont know if hydra cap has an alias. I believe he has a hydra skull/tenticles tatooed on his chest.
Interesting that he's still (Hydra) Captain "America" Steve!
Mr Morden wrote: For me one of the weakest marvel films was Cap A 1 - although thats not a problem with Evans but a terrible villian and bad handling of Hydra.
Completely agree. Whilst Iron Man 3 is the only MCU film I actively dislike, The First Avenger is probably the one I like the least. Watchable, sure, but once he becomes Cap and we get past the very clever war bonds montage it just falls off.
Huge Weaving is just taking great big bites out of the scenery, and totally ruins it for me, his plan makes no sense and the ending is lame.
Mysterio wrote: I didn't follow that storyline all that closely, so thanks for the synopsis - it actually sounds better than I thought it was!
Is it available in a TPB? (At least the overarching story issues)
And - what is Hydra Cap called now?
(Or is he a new Baron Zemo or...someone else?)
If its not in trade yet it should be soon. I think its call secret empire or some gak? At least the revealed hydra cap controlled country chapter of it is.
Dont know if hydra cap has an alias. I believe he has a hydra skull/tenticles tatooed on his chest.
Don’t think it’s actually a tattoo, but just something he painted on occasionally.
Something really interesting about the Hydra Cap storyline was that it ran concurrent with the Civil War II storyline, but in the CW he wasn’t depicted as evil. He was his traditional good guy self. Then when you read Cap you’d get some internal monologues and see stuff he was doing behind his back during those same scenes and was protrayed as manipulating the others into fighting. I enjoyed that aspect of it all.
Mr Morden wrote: For me one of the weakest marvel films was Cap A 1 - although thats not a problem with Evans but a terrible villian and bad handling of Hydra.
Completely agree. Whilst Iron Man 3 is the only MCU film I actively dislike, The First Avenger is probably the one I like the least. Watchable, sure, but once he becomes Cap and we get past the very clever war bonds montage it just falls off.
Huge Weaving is just taking great big bites out of the scenery, and totally ruins it for me, his plan makes no sense and the ending is lame.
It's not awful, it's just not good.
Actually on that now as part of my ‘all the films’ binge.
I see where people are coming from, but I enjoy those things. And in terms of scenery chewing glory, I also seriously enjoyed Fish Mooney in Gotham!
My only real complaint was Cap 1 is the ending. Nothing about it feels like it follows the film before it and really feels like a bunch of stuff that needs to happen for the sequels to happen. The actual setup is great, but as soon as Cap gets on the plane, it feels like the movie doesn't know how to get to where it needs to go.
LunarSol wrote: My only real complaint was Cap 1 is the ending. Nothing about it feels like it follows the film before it and really feels like a bunch of stuff that needs to happen for the sequels to happen. The actual setup is great, but as soon as Cap gets on the plane, it feels like the movie doesn't know how to get to where it needs to go.
Like I said, the writers had a thankless job. They had to cover pre-serum Steve and the origin, cover his WWII exploits, get him into the ice, and introduce him to the modern era. There's *far* too much ground to cover in the back half of the film. Thanks studio-driven cinematic universe!
It breaks down and breathes better as two films:
1 - Lighter of the two films. Pre-serum Cap (smidge more time there). Origin. Face off against RS or Zemo in first big adventure as CA. Good guys win, but the war continues.
2 - Darker film. Deep into WWII now. Cap and Howling Commandos kicking butt (the HC get more screen time here) and victory seems certain. Big villain #2 (Zemo or RS) has big scheme to pull out the war in favor of the Axis. Then gets Bucky killed. Sinks in that good guys might lose. Cap brought low. Cap digs deep, fights back against villain and wins, but ends up in the ice saving the day. Wakes up decades later.
This gives more room for more and better action sequences. Also gives more time to develop things with Peggy Carter.
You forgot that Cap 1 was also the lead-in for Avengers 1.
IMO, Cap 1 did just fine. Watching Cap 1 gives a clear insight into who he is, where he's from, what he's about, and what he can do. Red skull was a good choice, being an iconic villain, and setting up Hydra for Cap 2.
As Guardians 2 showed, origin stories are better when abbreviated, and needing to do 2 Cap movies just takes too long. If Guardians can do a good job introducing a full team in one movie, why does Cap need 2 movies?
Those are very different films and very different things were required of each film. Which makes...a difference.
My exercise there was about showing how you can tell better stories if you don't have 'cinematic universe' constraints.
We also shouldn't downplay budget constraints. They were real during Marvel's phase 1, and probably had more than a little to do with some of the abbreviated and/or meh WWII action sequences.
I know I am in the minority, but I really liked Cap 1 and the montage. It captured the Hollywood feel of the time, and the montage was like an old serials highlight reel.
WW2 isn’t the interesting thing about Cap, so much as his ‘man out of time’.
Ultimately, he’s still the same Steve Rogers we saw in Brooklyn. His spirit and moral compass is often challenged, but never really changed.
You don’t need more than a single movie to express that and set it in the audience’s mind. And look at his trilogy. It’s all been about challenging his world view, rather than him physically. He doesn’t really have the same journey as say, Tony Stark, who goes from an entirely self centred doofus, to a flawed man at least doing his best. And that’s ably demonstrated with the line about ‘become comfortable with absolutely no oversight’ upon his return Iron Man, right up to his side taking during Civil War.
But Cap doesn’t need that. Because he started out as a good man. He has no redemption, because none was needed. His challenge is always to stay true to himself and his ideals.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: WW2 isn’t the interesting thing about Cap, so much as his ‘man out of time’.
Ultimately, he’s still the same Steve Rogers we saw in Brooklyn. His spirit and moral compass is often challenged, but never really changed.
You don’t need more than a single movie to express that and set it in the audience’s mind. And look at his trilogy. It’s all been about challenging his world view, rather than him physically. He doesn’t really have the same journey as say, Tony Stark, who goes from an entirely self centred doofus, to a flawed man at least doing his best. And that’s ably demonstrated with the line about ‘become comfortable with absolutely no oversight’ upon his return Iron Man, right up to his side taking during Civil War.
But Cap doesn’t need that. Because he started out as a good man. He has no redemption, because none was needed. His challenge is always to stay true to himself and his ideals.
QFT. Note that "man out of time" is supposed to illustrate timeless ideals and virtues. If Cap changes to much, it's a disservice, which is the fundamental problem with Nazi Cap.
Also, Marvel loves fish out of water stories, hence Donald Blake and Sub-Mariner and Silver Surfer and the Thing disguised by wearing an overcoat, etc.
Speaking of budget, I rewatched Iron Man 1 last night. For being 10 years old, it holds up quite well, due to the practical effects. Although, there are moments where the CG is showing... Still good, and fitting as early armor.
I went back and watched all the Marvel movies in order over a few weeks, and they all hang together really well and build a long arc for the characters. I was really impressed upon re-watch, even more impressed then watching them over 10 years how coherent and put together they are.
gorgon wrote: Those are very different films and very different things were required of each film. Which makes...a difference.
My exercise there was about showing how you can tell better stories if you don't have 'cinematic universe' constraints.
We also shouldn't downplay budget constraints. They were real during Marvel's phase 1, and probably had more than a little to do with some of the abbreviated and/or meh WWII action sequences.
Ah but then we get "Directorial visions" and drek like Bats vs Sups.
The Marvel Cinematic films are on the whole brilliantly done both individually and as a series. However Cap A 1 (for me) is a weak element compared to the others.
The second one is much better as the plot is far better and the bad guys far more interesting and effective. Cap A works ok in the first and very well in the 2nd - I would argue he really comes to life in the Avengers (pun intended)
gorgon wrote: My exercise there was about showing how you can tell better stories if you don't have 'cinematic universe' constraints.
We also shouldn't downplay budget constraints. They were real during Marvel's phase 1, and probably had more than a little to do with some of the abbreviated and/or meh WWII action sequences.
Ah but then we get "Directorial visions" and drek like Bats vs Sups.
Batman vs Superman 2: Doomsday - Dawn of Justice had plenty of budget, but far more studio meddling. It's exactly what the Marvel movies would be if Avi Arad were still running the show, instead of Kevin Fiege. Except that the CGI and effects would be even worse, because he'd probably have pinched more pennies.
Had Warner simply let Snyder tell his stories without interference, we wouldn't have dreck like (career) Suicide Skwad and BvS and JL. To claim that the DCEU represents Snyder's vision is a falsehood that is only supported by Snyder being gentlemanly and taking a handsome paycheck to cover for the Warner Execs who fethed his movies.
Cap is kinda like the Hulk, great as a supporting character, because he's more of a concept than an actual character. Except the Hulk has more character development.
gorgon wrote: My exercise there was about showing how you can tell better stories if you don't have 'cinematic universe' constraints.
We also shouldn't downplay budget constraints. They were real during Marvel's phase 1, and probably had more than a little to do with some of the abbreviated and/or meh WWII action sequences.
Ah but then we get "Directorial visions" and drek like Bats vs Sups.
Batman vs Superman 2: Doomsday - Dawn of Justice had plenty of budget, but far more studio meddling. It's exactly what the Marvel movies would be if Avi Arad were still running the show, instead of Kevin Fiege. Except that the CGI and effects would be even worse, because he'd probably have pinched more pennies.
Had Warner simply let Snyder tell his stories without interference, we wouldn't have dreck like (career) Suicide Skwad and BvS and JL. To claim that the DCEU represents Snyder's vision is a falsehood that is only supported by Snyder being gentlemanly and taking a handsome paycheck to cover for the Warner Execs who fethed his movies.
Cap is kinda like the Hulk, great as a supporting character, because he's more of a concept than an actual character. Except the Hulk has more character development.
Justice League is (IMO) a great film - its up there with the better Marvel films in terms of enjoyment (Iron Man, Avengers)
Suicide Squad starts well and then about half way falls apart. bats vs Sups is poor - mainly due to Loopy Lex ruining the film every single horrific moment he is on screen.
As you know I have no interest in what any reviewer says and place no value in them.
I liked it, really enjoyed the start, the interplay , the fun the characters - but I also had no investment in any of them so they were all new to me.
Found the SS joker far more of a proper Joker than the dull super precog that that Heath ledger portrayed. Far more interesting and actually killed people
I would agree carla was wsted in the second half which is why I said it went down hill but she is great early in the movie
But absolutely nothing was as bad as Loopy lex - that was just gak thrown at the screen.
Mr Morden wrote: "Shrug" Enjoyed it the cinema - enjoyed in on DVD.
Loads worse - some of which is hoisted high by "reviewers"
When you make sweeping statements about “reviewers”, you may as well just say “people”. It feels like these days, the world is full of “reviewers”, but just because you own a camera and know how to upload to YouTube, it doesn’t mean that you know what you’re talking about.
Suicide Squad was really, really, bad. I think it barely counts as a movie and relied too much on the soundtrack. Will Smith is enjoyable, but it totally missed the point of the comic. Waller was super incompetent, shortsided, and was over the top evil. It would have been much better if they kept it to the source material: Basically deniable super spies promoting American interests through violence. They didn't need a "save the world" plot with a "sky beam."
Jared Leto's Joker broke the cardinal rule of a good Joker: You have to be funny. He was not funny or frightening. He was just annoying.
On Topic:
Marvel movies are really solid right now. While I grew up following mostly DC, the marvel movies have been the most consistently entertaining. I liked Infinity War part one and am looking forward to how it will be resolved.
SS was recut by a trailer company IIRC. No joke. The studio decided it wanted the film to be more like the fun tone in the trailer. So they had the trailer company's editors take a stab at the entire film alongside David Ayer working on his darker-toned cut. Then they tested both versions.
That's how fethed up things were at WB at the time. And the kind of feth-up that got Walter Hamada put in charge of the DC properties. While he seems to have a much steadier hand, the proof will be in the pudding.
Infinity War was a well crafted film that appeals not only to fans but a wider audiance, its funny, clever and enjoyable.
