Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Compel wrote:
Although, I'm sure a backup system of you-know-who survived.

Voldemort?

I thought the congressional hearing with Black Widow was a little odd at the end. Even with secrets out in the open she doesn't strike me as someone that would show up to something like that. I think it was mainly to work in the bit where she said that they wouldn't arrest her because they needed them to protect them. I think the purpose of it was that it will be motivation for the government to create Ultron, as a defense system against supers and what not. Of course he is going to go Skynet on them. Just a thought.

I'm actually not at all surprised that they used a slightly modified version of the Ultimates M-word origin. More and more they seem to be drawing from Ultimate verse rather than 616.

I liked this one a lot more than the first Captain film. I think the Captain America character has mostly stumbled through the Marvel Movie Universe but he finally hit his stride with this (on your left).

Honestly though as the movie wound down, I kind of felt a lot like I did at the end of Star Trek: Into Darkness;



I suppose I'm just setting myself up for failure when desiring Hollywood to have the balls to risk franchise viability to do something epic... Like they did when they made The Avengers.

I'm torn about this one.

On one hand, I thought the movie was great. Good action, characters, great introduction for Sam Wilson, wonderful bit with Zola, and generally very good and certainly world shattering for the MCU.

On the other hand, the show's now Agents of N.O.T.H.I.N.G., and I don't know how they'll sustain that, so much so that I think the events of this movie give Marvel an 'out', allowing them to wrap up the show's plot lines and not bother with a second season.

Sitwell being a HYDRA agent doesn't work for me, and the complete absence of Hawkeye was jarring.

 LordofHats wrote:
I suppose I'm just setting myself up for failure when desiring Hollywood to have the balls to risk franchise viability to do something epic... Like they did when they made The Avengers.

I must have missed it. What part of The Avengers risked franchise viability to do something epic?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
...I think the events of this movie give Marvel an 'out', allowing them to wrap up the show's plot lines and not bother with a second season.

We can only hope.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sitwell being a HYDRA agent doesn't work for me, and the complete absence of Hawkeye was jarring.

Having Sitwell at all detracted from this movie but I disagree about Hawkeye. This isn't The Avengers and really I wouldn't want to see them, even as cameos. Honestly, I'd have preferred it if they hadn't even used Black Widow.

 Breotan wrote:
We can only hope.

Why? I was as hard as anyone on this show at the start, but you appear to be dismissing the idea that a show can get better. In fact you sound like you'd even celebrate such a thing.

 Breotan wrote:
Having Sitwell at all detracted from this movie...

Why?

 Breotan wrote:
... but I disagree about Hawkeye. This isn't The Avengers and really I wouldn't want to see them, even as cameos. Honestly, I'd have preferred it if they hadn't even used Black Widow.

Except that's ludicrous. The movie is as much about SHIELD as it is Captain America. It's about Cap's role within SHIELD. To just ignore the major players (like Widow) doesn't make any sense.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
We can only hope.

Why? I was as hard as anyone on this show at the start, but you appear to be dismissing the idea that a show can get better. In fact you sound like you'd even celebrate such a thing.

Bad handling of an IP affects the IP as a whole. Whedon has some fan favorites, I grant you, but overall his track record is pretty bad. Killing this show as quickly as possible will give Disney/Marvel time to rethink how they want to approach television and (hopefully) give us a better series a year or two from now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Having Sitwell at all detracted from this movie...

Why?

As a character he isn't worth caring about. They could have left him out of the movie entirely and not changed a thing otherwise and it would be the same movie. He's also a plug-in from the television series and nobody gave a rat's ass about him then, either. Seriously, if you're going to make a bridge between the TV show and the movies, use characters that people give a damned about.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
... but I disagree about Hawkeye. This isn't The Avengers and really I wouldn't want to see them, even as cameos. Honestly, I'd have preferred it if they hadn't even used Black Widow.

Except that's ludicrous. The movie is as much about SHIELD as it is Captain America. It's about Cap's role within SHIELD. To just ignore the major players (like Widow) doesn't make any sense.

The Avengers is as much a SHIELD thing as Captain America yet except for the name dropping, they ignored Iron Man and the Hulk. I suppose having Hawkeye appear on the boat to gather intel instead of Widow would have been a good way to show both the "minor" Avengers/SHIELD agents while keeping this a Captain America movie. I guess I just dislike the idea of the Falcon having less screen time than Widow. After all, he's more a Captain America character while she is more of a Daredevil/Avenger character.

The thing that had me confused about Sitwell was that it... was sitwell.

I was expecting Agent Hand to show up.

 Breotan wrote:
As a character he isn't worth caring about. They could have left him out of the movie entirely and not changed a thing otherwise and it would be the same movie. He's also a plug-in from the television series and nobody gave a rat's ass about him then, either. Seriously, if you're going to make a bridge between the TV show and the movies, use characters that people give a damned about.

Isn't worth caring about? Says who exactly? You?

And Sitwell was in Thor and Avengers (and The Consultant, and Item 47) before he was ever on the TV show.

 Soladrin wrote:
The thing that had me confused about Sitwell was that it... was sitwell.

I was expecting Agent Hand to show up.

I would have cared more about Agent Hand at least.

 Breotan wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
The thing that had me confused about Sitwell was that it... was sitwell.

I was expecting Agent Hand to show up.

I would have cared more about Agent Hand at least.

I think Sitwell was used because his side wasn't given away automatically like Hand's was(she's well established as corrupt/a villain in 616).

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
The thing that had me confused about Sitwell was that it... was sitwell.

I was expecting Agent Hand to show up.

I would have cared more about Agent Hand at least.

I think Sitwell was used because his side wasn't given away automatically like Hand's was(she's well established as corrupt/a villain in 616).

Fair point, but her lack was still rather odd. You would at least expect her to show her face.

 Ahtman wrote:

I want Fury's SUV.

I want everything in this picture, except the crowd on my lawn.

 dogma wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

I want Fury's SUV.

I want everything in this picture, except the crowd on my lawn.

Touché

 dogma wrote:
except the crowd on my lawn.

Those damn kids, huh?

 Breotan wrote:
. He's also a plug-in from the television series and nobody gave a rat's ass about him then, either. Seriously, if you're going to make a bridge between the TV show and the movies, use characters that people give a damned about.

I think you're confusing your own opinion for public opinion. Happens all the time.

Being way, way behind in the UK on Agents of SHIELD. And apparently very unobservant in Thor... I had absolutely no idea who Sitwell was and whether he was supposed to be significant.

 Compel wrote:
Being way, way behind in the UK on Agents of SHIELD. And apparently very unobservant in Thor... I had absolutely no idea who Sitwell was and whether he was supposed to be significant.

This!

Until reading this thread I thought he was a new character for the film.

Same here

I don't believe Sitwell was that significant in the comics, either. Now that I think more on it, Soladrin has it right, they should have used Hand instead.

 Lordhat wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
. He's also a plug-in from the television series and nobody gave a rat's ass about him then, either. Seriously, if you're going to make a bridge between the TV show and the movies, use characters that people give a damned about.

I think you're confusing your own opinion for public opinion. Happens all the time.

I've no idea what you're talking about and neither do the majority of the public with their own opinions which happen to mirror my own.

I really liked the movie, i'd like to see a timeline of where all the marvel movies and tv shows actually take place as it seems this this movie changes everything for shield which would impact the tv show and other movies

Saw the film Thursday night, and then again today (took my parents out to the theater, since I 'owed' them one for the whole raising me thing.

Thoroughly enjoyed the film, loved the mid-credit scene. And oh yeah, got to see all the cool scenes that were filmed in my city

 Breotan wrote:
I must have missed it. What part of The Avengers risked franchise viability to do something epic?

The entire concept of spending billions of dollars on multiple separate moves that all tied into a single movie with a joined narrative was insanely risky and could have easily gone horribly wrong.

Yeah. Say what you want about the films themselves, but the fact that they exist is a pretty astonishing achievement, especially that when they began they were an independant studio and no on thought they would succeed.

And to make films good enough with actors who are in for the long haul so you don't have a new lead every 2 movies or require a reboot.

That is pretty well done.

To be honest, Im worried know with guardians of the galaxy. This could make or break the shared universe. A few of the Geeks in the audience thought "Sweet" But I heard alot of "Is that The Avengers? Is it part of it"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
To be honest, Im worried know with guardians of the galaxy. This could make or break the shared universe. A few of the Geeks in the audience thought "Sweet" But I heard alot of "Is that The Avengers? Is it part of it"

I think the distinct lack of Iron Man would have told even the most casual Marvel movie fan that it was not the Avengers.

Also we know that Iron Man only rocks out to AC/DC and not Blue Swede....

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
To be honest, Im worried know with guardians of the galaxy. This could make or break the shared universe. A few of the Geeks in the audience thought "Sweet" But I heard alot of "Is that The Avengers? Is it part of it"

I think the distinct lack of Iron Man would have told even the most casual Marvel movie fan that it was not the Avengers.

Also we know that Iron Man only rocks out to AC/DC and not Blue Swede....

Thanos was part of the avengers, he was the guy at the end of the credits.

Galaxy of the guardians, the green female character is Thanos's daughter.

I suspect this is going to be a movie to expose the movieverse to Thanos for future avengers movie so they literally don't have to exposition him.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
To be honest, Im worried know with guardians of the galaxy. This could make or break the shared universe. A few of the Geeks in the audience thought "Sweet" But I heard alot of "Is that The Avengers? Is it part of it"

I wouldn't be that worried about brand recognition. Generally speaking no one knows who the Guardians of the Galaxy are. Marvel are well aware of this (why else do you think the trailer was mostly a roll-call), and will not doubt spent time in the film ensuring we know what's going on.

And cast your mind back to just after Iron Man 2 came out. There's that end teaser with a hammer. Thor is announced, and the question becomes will people accept Thor into this universe. That was a huge risk, and it worked.