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.
2016/03/13 10:54:12
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
As we progress each film becomes more and more connected to the last, so Winter Soldier is essentially Avengers 2.5, with a bunch of characters introduced in Age of Ultron appearing in this one. Ant-Man is also in Civil War. Spiderman in this one has no relation to the old Spidey films at all. This is a completely new Spiderman.
As a Cap fan, I would have liked to have seen this story as a proper Avengers film, and this film saved for a proper Cap-focused story. People can say that he'll be a central character in this film, but I don't see how he won't get lost in his own film given the cast of thousands. Old Avengers and new Avengers with Ant-Man...and now Spidey too! Oh yeah...and Cap.
I was pretty excited about the fake out Serpent Society Cap film. Would have preferred they leave Civil War for an Avengers film after Infinity War, but Evans and RDJ might not want to do more by then at all.
2016/03/13 16:16:13
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
Baragash wrote: Technically Norton Hulk fits in their somewhere too
1. There's no 'technically' about it. The Incredible Hulk is part of the MCU. Hell, General Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross, played by William Hurt, From The Incredible Hulk, is in Civil War.
2. I included it in my list.
Weird, I read your list twice and missed it, my bad
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch." Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
2016/03/13 20:27:11
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
As we progress each film becomes more and more connected to the last, so Winter Soldier is essentially Avengers 2.5, with a bunch of characters introduced in Age of Ultron appearing in this one. Ant-Man is also in Civil War. Spiderman in this one has no relation to the old Spidey films at all. This is a completely new Spiderman.
As a Cap fan, I would have liked to have seen this story as a proper Avengers film, and this film saved for a proper Cap-focused story. People can say that he'll be a central character in this film, but I don't see how he won't get lost in his own film given the cast of thousands. Old Avengers and new Avengers with Ant-Man...and now Spidey too! Oh yeah...and Cap.
I was pretty excited about the fake out Serpent Society Cap film. Would have preferred they leave Civil War for an Avengers film after Infinity War, but Evans and RDJ might not want to do more by then at all.
I think that's a big reason for doing it now. Actors aren't getting any younger and might want to be done with these films.
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
2016/03/13 23:27:21
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
I disagree with the bit slamming IM3. While certainly not the greatest film out there, it definitely has a place, and a rather important one (IMO). In the 3 IM movies, I personally dislike 2 the most. While visually appealing Whiplash isn't as important a baddie as really anyone from IM3, despite how much they botched AIM.
2016/03/14 00:30:15
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
Out of all the ones H.B.M.C listed, I find The Incredible Hulk and the two Thor fims to be the weakest (annoyingly, Thor is probably the one with the most relevance to Avengers Assemble).
It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
2016/03/14 12:22:57
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
AndrewGPaul wrote: Out of all the ones H.B.M.C listed, I find The Incredible Hulk and the two Thor fims to be the weakest (annoyingly, Thor is probably the one with the most relevance to Avengers Assemble).
It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
I think the cast for that movie was amazing. The way the movie was shot was just horrendous though.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/03/14 13:47:46
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
timetowaste85 wrote: IM3 played an important role in Stark's personal growth. But the whole movie was so disnified it was insulting.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I disagree with the bit slamming IM3. While certainly not the greatest film out there, it definitely has a place, and a rather important one (IMO). In the 3 IM movies, I personally dislike 2 the most. While visually appealing Whiplash isn't as important a baddie as really anyone from IM3, despite how much they botched AIM.
As I said, the events in IM3 have not been referenced in any film since. The film was almost as if Shane Black wanted to make another film with RDJ, but begrudgingly had to include Marvel things to get it made.
But anyway, these do a better job of explaining what's wrong with IM3 than I ever could:
... with the exception of the Mk.42 armour. So... you have a suit of armour where every single piece has to have:
1. It's own internal power source. 2. It's own flight system. 3. It's own guidence system.
How is that at all a practical idea?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/14 13:58:24
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU, and that's before we even get into things like the fact that Talbot dies in Ang Lee's Hung, yet he's a character that's alive and well in the MCU (and played by Adrian Pasdar, who often voices Iron Man in the cartoons).
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU, and that's before we even get into things like the fact that Talbot dies in Ang Lee's Hung, yet he's a character that's alive and well in the MCU (and played by Adrian Pasdar, who often voices Iron Man in the cartoons).
To clarify- this is the current version of Talbot (Adrian Pasdar) who looks pretty close to the comics
This is the guy (Josh Lucas) used in Ang Lee's crappy 2003 movie. who looks absolutely nothing like the comics
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/03/14 14:09:13
AndrewGPaul wrote: Out of all the ones H.B.M.C listed, I find The Incredible Hulk and the two Thor fims to be the weakest (annoyingly, Thor is probably the one with the most relevance to Avengers Assemble).
It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
So far, for me Guardians of the Galaxy and Cap A 1 were the weakest of the new crop of Marvel films- with Guardians still a long way ahead of Cap A 1 which is really poor - so different to the fantastic sequel.
... with the exception of the Mk.42 armour. So... you have a suit of armour where every single piece has to have:
1. It's own internal power source.
2. It's own flight system.
3. It's own guidance system.
How is that at all a practical idea?
Er Tony does not care about practicality - If he is having fun - then the world is good to go - he builds Iron man suits cos he enjoys it.
I liked a lot of IM3 but it was the weakest of the series imo.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/14 14:42:38
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU, and that's before we even get into things like the fact that Talbot dies in Ang Lee's Hung, yet he's a character that's alive and well in the MCU (and played by Adrian Pasdar, who often voices Iron Man in the cartoons).
I never said it was "officially" part of the continuity; just that there wasn't anything to prevent it (other than a fact I'd forgotten, clearly, so let's leave it at that ). It's still better than the one with Edward Norton in, though.
I'm not convinced about a resemblance between Adrian Pasdar and that comic panel, though.
Iron Man 3 introduced Tony Stark's PTSD from Avengers, which carried through into Avengers 2 (and CA3, by the looks of things, too). And kicked off Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/14 14:53:02
2016/03/14 14:53:43
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm not sure there's much if anything that contradicts 2003's Hulk, either - The Incredible Hulk pretty much picked up where it left off rather than outright replacing it, and I preferred the first film anyway.
Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU, and that's before we even get into things like the fact that Talbot dies in Ang Lee's Hung, yet he's a character that's alive and well in the MCU (and played by Adrian Pasdar, who often voices Iron Man in the cartoons).
Yeah, but to be fair, it clearly wasn't a full reboot in the same way that Spidey keeps getting rebooted. The word "requel" was even thrown around at the time. Hulk isn't a unique case, though. Was Batman Forever a sequel to Batman Returns? I dunno...Alfred stayed the same, but everyone and everything else changed. *shrug*
Studios like sequels because there's guaranteed audience and they probably require less marketing. So if they can do a creative refresh but still position a film as a sorta-sequel, it's a win-win for them.
Just look at the Ghostbusters trailers. "Thirty years ago stuff happened"...which has no bearing on the events of this movie, but if you think it does and buy a ticket, they're okay with that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/14 17:07:44
timetowaste85 wrote: IM3 played an important role in Stark's personal growth. But the whole movie was so disnified it was insulting.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I disagree with the bit slamming IM3. While certainly not the greatest film out there, it definitely has a place, and a rather important one (IMO). In the 3 IM movies, I personally dislike 2 the most. While visually appealing Whiplash isn't as important a baddie as really anyone from IM3, despite how much they botched AIM.
As I said, the events in IM3 have not been referenced in any film since. The film was almost as if Shane Black wanted to make another film with RDJ, but begrudgingly had to include Marvel things to get it made.
... with the exception of the Mk.42 armour. So... you have a suit of armour where every single piece has to have:
1. It's own internal power source.
2. It's own flight system.
3. It's own guidence system.
How is that at all a practical idea?
You are correct on the suit issue.... but I think the bigger "issue" or theme of IM3 is not Mandarin (who, like everyone else, I think they botched, unless they botched him on purpose to reveal that he is the real Mandarin because of "Hail to the King" short and he will reappear in a later MCU film?) or even the portrayal of AIM.
I think the thing that IM3 is really good for, despite not being mentioned, is that Tony clearly has PTSD. It's a relevant issue in today's world, and he is trying to deal with it as any playboy billionaire philanthropist would: he builds more and more suits. The movie is about how he deals with PTSD, how it is ultimately ineffectual to treat it on his own the way he did, etc. I personally am OK with glossing over the terrible Mandarin schtick that shouldn't be schtick, and can gloss over AIM as well.
-As for the others, I agree that Ed Norton's Hulk character was better than the Eric Bana version, I am just glad we haven't had a Mark Ruffalo "origin" movie... It's almost as if MCU has realized from Sony's crap that people by now know the Hulk's origin story, you don't need to refilm it despite having a new actor. I think that Ruffalo does excellent as Hulk, but Ed Norton made a better Banner/Hulk combo. I'm sorry, but Ruffalo doesn't really look very scientist-like to me.
2016/03/14 18:42:01
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
To your point about Ruffalo Hulk, we're seeing a not-quite-the-same-but-similar thing with Batman in BvS. They don't need another origin story for the DCEU Batman. It's freakin' Batman, everyone knows who he is and why.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU, and that's before we even get into things like the fact that Talbot dies in Ang Lee's Hung, yet he's a character that's alive and well in the MCU (and played by Adrian Pasdar, who often voices Iron Man in the cartoons).
I never said it was "officially" part of the continuity; just that there wasn't anything to prevent it (other than a fact I'd forgotten, clearly, so let's leave it at that ). It's still better than the one with Edward Norton in, though.
I'm not convinced about a resemblance between Adrian Pasdar and that comic panel, though.
Iron Man 3 introduced Tony Stark's PTSD from Avengers, which carried through into Avengers 2 (and CA3, by the looks of things, too). And kicked off Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Oh God, Ang Lee's Hulk movie (the first one with Bana) was the second worst (at the time) marvel movie, being better than only Elektra. Even Daredevil, Ghost Rider, and the first FF movie (which I actually LIKED) were better. The Edward Norton version was a thousand times better. And I think the movie version of Abomination was far superior to every cartoon version ever, where he's always a dumb henchman and nothing more. This at least made him a credible threat. Did we even watch the same versions of these movies?!
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
2016/03/15 08:38:48
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's still better than the one with Edward Norton in, though.
Said no one else. Ever.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Iron Man 3 introduced Tony Stark's PTSD from Avengers, which carried through into Avengers 2 (and CA3, by the looks of things, too). And kicked off Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
1. PTSD, never brought up again.
2. Avengers kicked off AoS, not IM3.
The first couple of episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. had them chasing up leftover bits of Extremis research, IIRC. Not surprising, since Iron Man 3 was the last Marvel film to come out before AoS began.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/15 10:36:39
2016/03/15 11:47:28
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
AndrewGPaul wrote: The first couple of episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. had them chasing up leftover bits of Extremis research, IIRC. Not surprising, since Iron Man 3 was the last Marvel film to come out before AoS began.
Partially. Iirc it was a mixture of extremis, super solider knock off, and gamma stuff. Kind of a whole Avengers in a bottle thing.
2016/03/15 13:34:36
Subject: Captain America: Civil War new trailer page 7
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's still better than the one with Edward Norton in, though.
Said no one else. Ever.
I'll say it. Hulk had its problems, and Lee tried too hard to elevate the material. He's since admitted that he should have cut back on all the psychological stuff. But at least he tried.
On the other hand, The Incredible Hulk was typical of Marvel's worse efforts -- polished, professional, by-the-numbers, bland and soulless.
A lot of The Incredible Hulk's failings were down to Edward Norton's interfering with the movie in production. Which is part of why Marvel got rid of him.
Ang Lee's Hulk just plain sucked.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/15 14:47:46
Legion: Dark Angels 
