Haight wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Haight wrote:
Which is fine, but that doesn't keep it from being a commercial success.

Y'mean like how Transformers 4 was the highest grossing movie of 2014?

Commercial success =/= good.

I didn't see Trans4, I stopped after Trans1 which i thought was terrible and decided my money was better spent than to see further installments. You didn't like Trans4, but it made a gak ton of money.

Would it be fair to state then that lots of people liked it, and liked Trans 1-3 enough to go see 4 ? Seeing as it was the highest grossing movie of 2014 and all.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

The only down side I can see of the big "hero" cast is less likely get much from their indivudal suport teams/girlffirends which is a shame. For me its of the many things that MCU does better than the DC films - its not "just" an action film - actually have some good character interactions....../human moments - Hawkeye elements were standout for this in AOU

To be honest, I don't see this as a loss. Those characters are needed when it comes to the solo films just flesh out the cast, but in the team movies (and this is Avengers 2.5, really, rather than Cap 3) they are really a tad superfluous, especially as the dynamics and relationships between the characters in the team are so well handled. Hawkeye in AoU was the exception since up to that point he hasn't had any kind of character building done, but I'm very glad Jane/Pepper ect were left out of it.

I think this is another reason why Cap 2 was so good; the 'supporting cast' of Widow and Falcon were interesting, unique and cool characters in their own right, whereas the supporting casts of IM/Thor are basically the same set of 'lead's girlfriend/lead's friend/lead's other friend' and not the most interesting characters.

Thor 2 again did it better with the Asgardian characters (well, Loki for the most part), but at this point I'd be happy if we never saw Jane/Darcy/Selvig/Pepper/Happy on screen again. They've done their part in getting the Heroes to where they are, but what more can you do with them? It's not that they are inherently dull, just that now everything is connected, they just compete for screen time with the people we watch these films to see, the Avengers and other heroes.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I've heard some movie insiders say that Cap is eclipse Thor's popularity at the moment and that could impact some studio decisions.

They're going to have to start flashing "buy your own Caribbean island" money if they want to keep Evans around, given he's apparently almost as sick of maintaining his superhero physique as Hemsworth and wants to be done with Cap in 2017 so he can work on directing. I suppose if they pull it off they might be able to transition to BuckyCap or FalconCap in a way that maintains the popularity, but Evans nailed the role pretty comprehensively so any replacement will have a hard time.

 -Loki- wrote:
They've been planning it anyway.

Evans only would commit to a 6 movie deal. Sebastian Stan signed up for 9 films. Given that 3 of those are taken up as Bucky/Winter Soldier by the end of Civil War, that leaves 6 films after Infinity War for him to pick up the shield. 6 films is 3 phases of films, just like Evans has done.

By then, we'll be up to phase 7 when he's out of contract. We'll be luck if they maintain this momentum through phase 6, honestly. So yeah, Stan will very likely take over as Cap for the rest of the Marvel slate.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
They've been planning it anyway.

Evans only would commit to a 6 movie deal. Sebastian Stan signed up for 9 films. Given that 3 of those are taken up as Bucky/Winter Soldier by the end of Civil War, that leaves 6 films after Infinity War for him to pick up the shield. 6 films is 3 phases of films, just like Evans has done.

By then, we'll be up to phase 7 when he's out of contract. We'll be luck if they maintain this momentum through phase 6, honestly. So yeah, Stan will very likely take over as Cap for the rest of the Marvel slate.

Signing up for multiple films doesn't mean you'll be in multiple films. An "X" picture contract just means that if the studio wants you you are obligated to show up for those films. They could kill both of 'em off in the next film and they'd still have films left in their contract.

 AduroT wrote:
Don't they have Quicksilver contracted for a few additional films yet?

 Easy E wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Could have been a great premise for historical, sci-fi film.

Captain America up against the south...

and then the Southern States reply with Captain Confederacy

Wouldn;t that still be another Super-hero punch up?

 Paradigm wrote:
Am I in a minority in thinking Civil War was actually an awesome series of comics? I admittedly haven't read a ton of comics, but of the arcs I have read start to finish, I'd say only Planet Hulk was better (and possibly Avengers vs X-men as a story, but the artwork for CW was certainly better).

 Paradigm wrote:
Am I in a minority in thinking Civil War was actually an awesome series of comics? I admittedly haven't read a ton of comics, but of the arcs I have read start to finish, I'd say only Planet Hulk was better (and possibly Avengers vs X-men as a story, but the artwork for CW was certainly better).

 reds8n wrote:

Anyway, it's comic book related but -- spoilers duh!
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/05/12/the-identity-of-the-new-female-thor-leaks-online/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
can't quite see this turn happening in the movies but who knows !

 Kojiro wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

Anyway, it's comic book related but -- spoilers duh!
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/05/12/the-identity-of-the-new-female-thor-leaks-online/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
can't quite see this turn happening in the movies but who knows !

Aaaaand that's the end of Fem-Thor. She has her own name. She's just that person wielding Mjolnir. We were promised Thor as a woman- what we got was a woman wielding Thor's power and weapon with a hastily added 'oh have my name too' added on.

 Kojiro wrote:
Aaaaand that's the end of Fem-Thor. She has her own name. She's just that person wielding Mjolnir. We were promised Thor as a woman- what we got was a woman wielding Thor's power and weapon with a hastily added 'oh have my name too' added on.

 Alpharius wrote:

I don't quite follow you here - what exactly is your problem with this reveal?

Series writer Jason Aaron emphasizes, “This is not She-Thor. This is not Lady Thor. This is not Thorita. This is THOR. This is the THOR of the Marvel Universe. But it’s unlike any Thor we’ve ever seen before.”

Good. Thor isn't a woman. Thor is Thor, just as Sam Wilson is Captain America but he is not Steve Rogers.

 Kojiro wrote:
See I agree with this to a point. I don't mind a gender bent Thor so long as there's a reason for it. Asgard has outright magic, there's alternate dimensions/timeline. Who's to say Thor wasn't born a girl in one of them? That would be a legitimate female Thor. What you can't do- where I agree with you- is that picking up someone else's gear doesn't make you them- no matter how evil or unworthy of it they became.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
See I agree with this to a point. I don't mind a gender bent Thor so long as there's a reason for it. Asgard has outright magic, there's alternate dimensions/timeline. Who's to say Thor wasn't born a girl in one of them? That would be a legitimate female Thor. What you can't do- where I agree with you- is that picking up someone else's gear doesn't make you them- no matter how evil or unworthy of it they became.

Genderbending Thor? No issue. They did it with Loki. Hell, they did it with Ultron, and that doesn't even make any sense! But having "Thor" as a female running around when the actual Thor is still around, and she's not from an alternate universe? That doesn't make sense.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

Purist would be more upset if there were NOT genderbending Loki. And Thor is historically a crossdresser who was engaged to a giant, so a female Thor isn't that much of a stretch.

 Kojiro wrote:
The only sexism angle to this thing is that what was done was done explicitly (and openly) to promote a feminist agenda.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:

Purist would be more upset if there were NOT genderbending Loki. And Thor is historically a crossdresser who was engaged to a giant, so a female Thor isn't that much of a stretch.

The thing to remember here is that a lot of people are upset at what happened to Thor because they like Thor. And as I said above the complaints can and would be made regardless of the gender of the recipient of his power. The only sexism angle to this thing is that what was done was done explicitly (and openly) to promote a feminist agenda. But even if you have good intentions, if you write gak and mess up beloved characters you're going to cop flak.